erestemplate Electronic Reserves Reading Please type all relevant information into the form, print the form and return it to the library circulation desk with each ERes photocopy. Professor Course Course Semester Name Number Robert Miller Pentateuch SCRP 502 Spring 2004 Reserve Reading Citation Joan Gormley, "Creation in the Bible" pp. 48-75 in "Creation and Evolution" (St. Louis: ITEST, 1998) To Be Posted by (date) Jan 7, 2004 The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) lgoverns the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted materials. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other lreproduction. |One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private lstudy, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyris hitp://Avww.msmary.edu/eres/facultytemplate.html 11/10/2003CREATION IN THE BIBLE GENESIS 1 ‘Sitcr Joan Gormley ipa native of Philadelphia, Pernaylvania. She ho ‘Degree in Chscs froin Harvard Univer from Fordham Taiversity: She alo 5 3 clasica and theology at Trinity College in Washington, D.C Bed it carsently Ascciate Pro = Emumiuburg, Macyiond ssor of Theology at Mount Saint Mary's Seminary in Creation in the Bible Darwin's theory of evolution descended like a bombshell with publication-of Origin of Species in 1859, with the sense of disaster perhaps most acute among adherents of biblical religion. For Darwin's theory, at Grst glance, seemed hopelessly at odds with the accounts of creation in Genesis. Moreover, many of the proponents of theories of evolution made no secret that they were atheists or agnostics. As time Went on, however, and as supporting evidence began to mount, the theory was increasingly supported by scientists and non- scientists alike. Biblical exegetes, theologians, and churchmen also came to peace with the dhicory as they realized that it did not necessarily exclude a personal creator. Also, at approximately the same time as the theory of evolu- tion was gaining ground, historical-criticalstudies of the Old Testament were showing that the Genesis accounts were ot science at history ~ at least not history in the wodern sense. It became clearer therefore, that the biblical accounts were ot written for the purpose of giving scientific er historical on, but rather to reveal truths concerning salvation. In the first part of the twentieth century, there were, to be vore, still skirmishes with fundamentalist Protestants in the United States, one of whose defining characteristics was insistence om the literal meaning of the Scrip- tures. After various attempts on their part to stop the teaching of evolution in the public schools, the controversy seemed to die down, to the point that it appeared that evolution was going to be generally accepted asa respectable scientific theory, and even a fact. When the controversy suddenly flared gain, many were taken by surprise, unable to understand either the resis- tance to evolution or the bteral interpretation of Seripture which undergird- edit For example, at the beginning of his very thorough and still influential com- mentary on Genesis, written early in the twentieth century, John Skinner Tbrougha the full weight of his scholaily authority to bear on die question of the relationship between modern science, with als theory of evolution, and the biblical accounts of cfeation, Considering the issue already satisfactorily settled and thus unworthy of further treatment, the exegete declared his in tention to give it short shrift and to dwell on other matters chapters Phe old controversies as to the compatibility of the earl [of Genesis} with the conclusions of modern science are no longer, ny mind, a living issue, and I have not thought it necessary to orewpy sauich space with their discussion, A few pages later he pronounces an “absolute veto” on attempis to harmonize the creation accounts with the findings of modern science. It is, Skinner states, “exegetically indefensible,” to attempt to harmonize the biblical creation50 accounts with science, for example, by interpreting the six days of creation ‘aa six geological periods, or by attempting to find some scientific explanation for the fact that in the opening chapter of Genesis, the creation of the sun and:moon takes place three days after the creation of light. Several decades after Skinner's "absolute veto," the question of the relation- ship between the biblical narratives of creation and the findings of modern science — most especially concerning the origins of the world and of man — is still very much alive. Moreover, other scholars have replaced Skinner in wondering how it can possibly be that these issues would not only resurface, but become the focal point of court cases and media coverage, as has hap- pened in recent years, especially in the public debate and litigation over the Claims of what is termed, ‘ereation-science.” Conrad Hers, considering the furor generated over the issue of whether creation-science is parallel to evolutionscience muses that: [With all the decades of scientific research and biblical scholarship. since the Scopes "monkey trial" in,1925, one might have thought that the issues were by now passé But, for various reasons, the issue of the relationship between creation and evolution remains a current one, and is one of the principal forms taken by the contemporary debate between science and religion. One obvious factor is the strength, in the United States, of fundamentalist Christianity with its ‘conceptions of biblical infalibility and literal interpretation of the Bible and its steady focus on the questions surrounding creation and evolution.! Its insistence on a literal reading ofthe creation accounts in Genesis ensures that the controversy will remain a burning one, at least for the immediate future. But another reason why the question of creation and evolution has not been laid to est, is the crucial importance of the issue of human and cosmic ori- gins, an importance which makes it imperative that it be dealt with, not just by the natural sciences, but also by philosophy and theology. In an otherwise blistering critique of creationism, Bruce Vawter concedes that perhaps the ‘one positive effect of the controversy over so called creation-science — a controversy he thinks should never have occurred — has been that it has ac- cented the need for contemporary theologians to address the issues raised by science, and the ramifications they have for the whole social order. ‘The need for contemporary theology to address anew the theme of creation, kas also been addressed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.® Citing the neglect Fthie topic in the work of theologians, Ratzinger lamented the movement ‘away from the traditional language of creation, taken from scriptural sources, 51 and its replacement by concepts culled from science. He cites several prom- inent German theologians who, in their work, seem to hide the theme of ere- ation or to give it fleeting treatment. For example he cites one scholar who suggests replacing traditional biblical language of creation, which has "seen its day," with concepts from modern science: "Concepts like selection and ‘mutation are intellectually much more honest than that of creation.” In an- other place, the same theologian reduces the biblical message of creation to what he considers its “mythological and apocalyptic formulation.” Another example is taken from » catechism, widely used in France. In the few pages devoted to creation, it reduces the meaning of the concept to the affirmation that “the first and final meaning of life is to be found in God himself, most intisnately present to our being.” The text then presents four ‘current chjections to the biblical notion of ereation, to which it provides no response, and concludes with an exiitential interpretation of the creation theme. The result, Ratzinger maintains, is that the reality of Christian faith is well nigh Ios, since "God no longer has anything to do with matter. Creationists embrace the biblical stories of creation in their most literal sense, and some of their namber devise a “creation science’ which they see to ac- cord with the biblical accounts of creation. On the other hand, there are some Christian theologians who embrace the language of science and prefer to use terms coming from evolutionary theory rather than the language of the Bible. Its interesting to note that, as disparate as the two views might appear at first glance, they share an aniazing similarity. For each, in its own, way, is actually dominated by modern science, and cach in its own way, ‘moves away from the Bible. The creationists in their tenacious adherence to the literal sense of the Bible, actually bow in the direction of science in treat- ing the Bible as that which it makes no claim to be, a book of science, as though this were the only form of discourse worthy of acceptance. On the other hand, some non-fundamentalist Christian theologians pay similar home age to science inasmuch as they abandon the concepts which are integral to their discipline, including those which come from the Scriptures, “the soul of theology,” adopting instead the language of modern science. ‘Creationists and accommodating theologians alike ake it more dificult for the Bible to be brought into dialogue with science! and to shed its light on the question of creation and evolution, surely one of the most urgent facing us at the threshold of a new century. Pethaps the reason for this relative silence on the part of theology is, at least in part, a sense that scienec goes from strength to strength and victory to vie- tory int unlocking the secrets of the universe, while biblical exegesis and the- ‘ology are left the unenviable task of responding to new theories and, perhaps52 ‘accommodating to them, The physicist, Paul Davies, considering the modern confrontation of science and theology, paints an interesting picture of the two approaches to the pursuit of truth. The scientist, employing the method of observation and experiment, presses forward in the pursuit of knowledge. Hypotheses and theories are constructed and used until evidence points away from them; then, however cherished, they are abandoned for new ones. The ‘truly amazing success of this method is eloquent witness to its validity and effectiveness ‘The believer, on the other hand, and this applies above all to the exegete or theologian, sets out with revealed truth already in hand, established in the past and handed down, to be adhered to no matter what evidence might ap- Pear to the contrary. In this picture, revelation is like cumbersome baggage which weighs the traveler down and prevents free movement forward.!! ‘One might object that, on a number of points, the comparison is inaccurately and unlairly stated; ¢.g., one can grow into ever deeper understanding of the mysteries revealed; there is no reason why the believer cannot, without com- promise to faith, use the scientific method to penetrate the mysteries of crea- ‘ion; truth is one so that, in the last analysis, the truth discovered in science will never contradict the truth revealed in revelation, but will illuminate it All of these points are valid, but they do not alter the fact that it appears to many that, as Ratzinger puts it “the history of Christianity in the last four hundred years has been a constant rear guard action as the assertions of the faith and of theology have been dismantled piece by piece."!2 And perhaps as corollary, we would have to add that it appears to many that science has displaced religion in providing answers to many human questions, to say no. thing of answering needs through technological advances. J+ is important to note that when we speak here of the status of the debate between religion and science, we are speaking of the way things appear to bet science appears completely successful and knowledgeable in its explanation of reality; faith and theology appear constantly on the defensive or accommo. dating, Evolution is a splendid example. On the basis of converging lines of ‘evidence, science has accepted biological evolution as a "fact," as secure as any fact can be where the evidence is not direct.! On the basis of the weighty evidence in favor of evolution, the theory has come to be accepted by many, if not most, educated people, including theologians, who now must reread the biblical accounts of creation in light of new knowledge, as well as the var- ious theologies availablein the tradition. The question ofthe role of theology issinescapable. Does it have any role? Do the words of Scripture, actaally ‘uieried and rejected by many scientist, including Darwin, have the slightest relevance? 53 ‘The reflections of Leon Kass on the methodological limitations of science might offer light on this question of the relevance of Scripture and theology to the modern debate on questions of life. Scientific knowledge, Kass argues, differs by definition from the wisdom of Socrates, in that, unlike philosophy, science is based upon mathematical physics. In the modern period, Kass ar ‘gues, science has redefined what is meant by scientific knowing by employing universal method to arrive at-clear and certain knowledge. By definition, this excludes from the competency of science, questions which do not yield to such objective inquiry. Tt also means that science is "neutral" in face of enduring questions such as those which concern the meaning of life, ultimate causes, good and evil, justice and injustice, and therefore, indifferent and silent on questions of theology and ethics. But if scientific findings are — at least in the abstract — objective and neutral with regard to theological and moral questions, they often do not remain so when diffused. According to Kass: ‘They challenge and embarrass the notions about man, nature and the whole that lie at the heart of our traditional self-understanding and our moral and political teachings. The sciences not only fail to provide their own standards for human conduct; their findings ‘cause us also to doubt the truth and the ground of those standards we have held and, more or less, still tacitly hold. ‘Thus, as marvelous as the achievements of science have been, and indeed be- cause of this, modern society is ever more threatened by what Jacques Monod has termed an evil een "more insidious and much more deep-seated” than other problems brought on by science, such as the nuclear threat, namely an evil which “besets the spirit” This evil was begotten "of the sharp- est turning point ever taken in the evolution of ideas" —a spiritual evolution continues and accelerates constantly in the same direction, ever increasing that bitter distress of the soul. .... The whole of it, however — the spiritual disorder like our nuclear might — is the ‘outcome of one simple idea: that nature is objective, that the sys- tematic confronting of logic and experience is the sole source of true knowledge.! Monod, himself scientist, and no advocate of faith or revelation, nonetheless perceives the disaster that a scientific imperialism brings upon’ mankind: a deep-seated evil, distress of soul. The same science that is tempted to forget its methodological limitations in the full flush of its many successes, is also very much tempted to forget, ignore or reject any notion of the dignity ofba ‘man, treating him as an object for observation, experimentation, and mani- palation. In a situation where the great promise offered by science is over- shadowed by such ominous threats to the human spirit, none of the human- ities can afford to abdicate whatever authority lies in its own domain of Knowledge — least of all can theology do so. Since the "soul of theology’ is Scripture, it is necessary to make very certain that the biblical revelation — ‘most especially in those books and passages which touch directly upon questions of the origins and destiny of man — should be called into play to illuminate the issues treated in the dialogue between theology and science. ‘The answer to the question of whether biblical concepts, such as those con- cerning creation, can mean anything today will depend, in large part, on the extent to which exegetes and theologians insist on their continuing validity and make them heard in the contemporary world. All thi is involved in en- tering into that very necessary dialogue with science for which John Paul IT called in his recent address to the Pontifical Academy of Science. 1¢ essay which follows will consider the question of creation and evolution. in two major sections. In the first, we will review the creationist approach to Scripture (I), focusing on key issues underlying it, namely, notions of inspir- ‘ation and inerrancy (A) and the literal interpretation of Scripture (B). We will attempt to place each concept into the larger context of its historical Chris tian usage, thus transcending the common misunderstandings stemming from ‘the more popular but restrictive views of fundamentalist Christians. We hope to show that the creationist controversy is what Cardinal Ratzinger has called “a burden for the faith"! which distracts and prevents the much needed dialogue from taking place on the question of evolution and faith. The second major section in my presentation will be consideration of the positive content of the biblical notion of creation through a study which focuses on the account of creation in Genesis I (I), a passage of outstanding importance in the creationist debate as well as in the formulation of Christian theology of creation. We will uot attempt to give a detailed exegesis ofthis text — an impossible task from every point of view — but merely to single ‘out aspects of the account which seem especially relevant in view of our pres- ent interest in evolution and creation. After prefiminary consideration of the nature and history of the account of ereation (A), we will focus on several le- ‘ments of the text which are especially significantin the dialogue between the- ‘logy and science (B): God's act of creating (1), the special ereation of man (2), and finally, God's observance of the Sabbath (3). ‘The:thesis of the paperis that the Bible and, in this c ically the in this case, specifically the biblical account of creation in Gen. 1, properly understood in its nature as 5B God's inspired word communicating the truth about salvation, while it does not offer any valid form of science, does shed light on absolutely fundamen- tal and critical issues raised by modern science concerning not only the ori gins, but also the destiny, of the world, of life, most especially of the life of human beings. I. Creationist Approach to Scripture ‘The debate over creation and evolution in the United States has been associ- ated, almost from the beginning, with a particular movement within Protes- tantism, namely, fundamentalism. The term originated in 1895 at a meeting of conservative Protestant exegetes and theologians during the American Bib- lical Congress held in Niagara, New York. Concerned about the erosion of the fundamentals of Christian faith, those in attendance drew up a list of five fundamental beliefs, the first of which was the verbal inerrancy of Seripture. The movement spread rapidly, both nationally and internationally, and other subsidiary movements sprang up to further the cause of preserving the fun- damentals of faith.!7 ‘The position known as "creationism" represents one particularly active and vocal movement within the larger movement of Christian fundamentalism. One of its principal spokesmen, Dr. Henry Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research, distinguishes two types of creationism, biblical and scientific. The first, biblical creationism, bases itself on the Bible alone, without recourse to scientific data; the second, scientific creationism (or "creation-science’), claims to be based solely on “scientific data." It makes no direct oF open appeal to the Bible. However, ts "science" is completely com- patible with it and obviously based upon it. In short, creationists refuse all accommodation to any findings of modern sci- ‘ence which are seen to conflict with the Bible. Its rejection applies first ofall to evolutionary theory, even that accepted by many conservative evangelical Chnstians, Evolutionary science 18 regarded by them as equivalent to atheism. Since the creationist controversy rests upon a particular understanding of the interpretation of Scripture, namely, fundamentalist belief in verbal inerrancy, it will be helpful to give some attention to the notions of inspiration, iner- ancy and the literal sense of Scripture, as these have been understood in the (Christian Tradition and as they are presently understood among most Chris- tians.56 A. Inspiration and Inerrancy The *problem" of the inspiration of Scripture is in many ways a peculiarly ‘modem one, shared neither by the Bibl itself, nor by the Fathers and Doc: tors of the Church, The Old Testament abounded in statements declaring God to be the source or author of certain books: the law given to Moses; in. augural visions of the prophets; prophetic oracles which began and con- cluded with formulae indicating that the words were God's: “thus says the Lord; this is the word of the Lord." New Testament authors, as well as Jews contemporary with them, accepted the Old Testament writings as inspired, both as regards text and authors. Paul, writing to Timothy, states the prin- ciple that “all scripture is inspired by God" (Wheopmeustos) and thus profitable for the various aspects of the work of the "man of God" (2 Tim 3:16). In 2 Peter, the author relies, not on myths, but on "the prophetic word,” which haas its source, not in any human willing, but in the action by which the pro- phets were "carried along’ or "moved" by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. :20-21). ‘The Fathers of the Churgh also accepted the notion of inspiration without discussion or explanation.” The most common formulation of the belief was that "God is the author of the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments.” ‘The formula, as used in the first centuries of the Church, was meant to em- Phasize God's authorship of the Old Testament at well as the New Testament, Point which the Gnostics contested. The formula entered into the mainstream of theology, being used by Ambrose and Augustine, eventually becoming the preferred way of expressing God's role. Because it highlights the primary and essential aspect of the doctrine of inspiration, i.e. God's authorship of the whole of Scripture, the formula has continued in use even up to Vatican Council I. But however correct and useful, the formulation leaves in the shade the other absolutely crucial dimension of inspiration, the role of the human au- ther. The term "dictation," employed early on to speak of inspiration, tended to diminish the role of the human author in favor of emphasis on God's role — the authorship more likely to be called into question. Though the Latin term dictatio did not necessarily indicate word for word dictation, it left litle room for the contribution of the human author and moved in the direction of regarding the writer more as an instrument in God's hands rather than a8 a'co-author. Various figures used in medieval times accent the human au- ‘ior’s subordination to the divine; e.g. the writer as lyre, harp, pen. It was the genius of Thomas Aquinas to come up with a formula which paid ‘ a formula which pai due attention to both the divine and human authorship of the Scriptures: the Parallel notions of principal efficient cause to designate God's authorship of @ 37 ‘Scripture, and instrumental efficient cause to designate the writer's author- ship. Though there was some early and medieval development of concepts and language to deal with God's relation to the Scriptures and to their human author, there was, until the nineteenth century, little cofcern for doing more than stating the fact of inspiration. Even the Council of Trent (1546) merely repeated the Church's traditional teaching that God is the author of the Scriptures, which were received by ‘dictation’ from the Holy Spirit, paying litde attention to the role of the human author. The Reformers, in spite of, some hints of novelty, stayed amazingly close to the traditional formulations. ‘Though understanding of inspiration remained largely unchanged in six- teenth century uses of the term, a new concern was introduced which would be a factor in subsequent discussions of inspiration, and which continues to be a factor in, fandamentalist circles, namely that of the so-called "inerrancy" of the Bible.2! Already in the sixteenth century, there were proponents of an extremely stringent view of inspiration which emphasized freedom from error as characteristic of the inspired Scriptures. From this point on, the question of inspiration is intertwined with that of inerrancy. With the introduction of two new factors in the nineteenth century iscussions of inspiration and inerrancy became yet more complicated. The findings of historical criticism of the Bible and the conclusions of science made traditional understandings of the authority of the Bible thoroughly confusing and difficult for many Christians, scholars and non-scholars alike. Historical eriticism was calling into question the meaning, validity and truth ‘of some of the most cherished parts of the Bible, most notably the Penta- teuch and the Synoptic Gospels. Meanwhile science, especially the Darwinian theory of evolution, was calling into question the Christian conception of the origin and nature of man. Small wonder that the question of truth and error in the Bible increasingly dominated discussions of the Christian doctrine of inspiration. In Catholic circles, various ingenious theories of limited inspiration were pro- posed during the nineteenth century to leave greater room for the activity of the human author and also a certain "margin of error," and, it must be sid, to escape the dilemma which seemed to be posed by a notion of plenary inspiration. The various theories of limited inspiration were rejected by Vatican I and then by Leo XIII in the encyclical, Providentissinus Deus. Especially emphasized by Leo XIII were the themes of verbal and plenary inspiration, described by him as the "ancient and unchanging faith of the58 Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent," and confirmed by Vatican Council I. For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canon- ieal are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far iit from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects 1t as absolutely and necessarily as itis impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true: ‘This basic definition by Leo XIII, which has been repeated by various offical documents of the Magisterium, up to and including Vatican II, is actually uit close to the fundamentalist view insofar as it maintains that the words of Scripture, in their entirety, are to be considered inspired and without fervor. As was said at Vatican IT and is held by most Christian exegetes in the mainstream of theology, the Bible "teaches firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.” ‘The problem with the fundamentalist insistence on inspiration and inerrancy is certainly not in adherence to that doctrine. It is rather the rigidity with which it interprets inspiration and inerrancy, regarding them as guaranteeing the infallible authority of the Bible in all areas of knowledge. As Bruce Vawter puts it, they regard the Bible as the one source of all knowledge, 'a sort of divine encyclopedia of all relevant knowledge dropped down from the heavens as the only righteous guide to life."®° But it is also that their under. standing of these theological conceptions is attached to a particularly narrow conception of the word of God, manifest in attachment to the “literal sense of the Scriptures. ©. Literal Sense of the Scriptures For the mainstream of Christian thought, the expression “literal sense" of the Seriptures refers to their most basic sense, the meaning conveyed directly by the words. In exegesis and theology before the modern period, this basic sense conveyed by the words was understood mainly in terms of the meaning intended by God, but gradually, the understanding of the concept has been Fefined to place more balanced emphasis on the role of the human author Rrwell 1s now widely seen to apply tothe meaning intended by the hu saneauthor and the meaning conveyed by the words.” These two elements SS:tbgether, whether the author speaks in plain language or in figures. It is fr 59 not valid to simply look for the literal meaning in the words apart from the intent of the author. Ifit is necessary to discern the intention of the author in order to arrive at the literal meaning of the text, then the first unavoidable tatk is to close the gap which stands between the author and the interpreter. This gap is a siz~ able one for readers of the Bible. To understand the mentality of the author, and thus to arrive at his intention in speaking particular words, it is neces. sary to have knowledge of the history and geography of Israel and the An- cient Near East; itis necessary to know the languages which were used anid the surrounding culture and to identify the literary genre in which a given work is written; for example, whether it is prose, poetry, history. Tt is colossal error to think of the Bible ap timeless revelation gnd that one can simply pick it up and begin to read without preparation.” Its this latter approach to Scripture which constitutes the most characteristic quality of fundamentalism and which undergirds its fierce opposition to the theory of evolution. One of the basic tenets of biblical creationism is that the Bible, as divinely inspired and without error, is “infallible and completely authoritative on all matters" with which it deals. Though this view applies to the whole Bible, the prineipal focus of scientificcreationism and its ontrover- sy with evolutionism is on the frst three chapters of Genesis. These chapters, together with the whole story of primeval history in Genesis I-LI, are termed “fully historical and perspicuoy ‘The Book of Genesis thus is in reality the foundation of all true history, as well as of true science and true philosophy.” ‘These words of Dr. Henry Morris, president ofthe Institute for Creation Re- search, sum up what may be the most fundamental error of fundamentalism, and, specifically, of biblical creationism. In effec, all the words of Scripture are reduced to the language of history and scicnce. Meanwhile, the historical dimensions of the biblical text are ignored and modern critical methods of ascertaining them are rejected on principle. ‘The same kind of opposition which creationism offers to evolutionism is also directed against historical-critical study of the Bible,°? which, using methods modeled on those of the natural sciences, has sought to illuminate the histor- ical aspects of biblical texts, and has produced results of great importance for understanding the Pentateuch, including the Book of Genesis. Two examples of crucial significance in interpretation of the creation narratives in Genesis — and thus of great importance in carrying on the creationist debate withEB 60 science — are mentioned here to illustrate what is lost by refusal to have ‘contact with the historical dimension of the Bible. ‘The first example is the documentary hypothesis, finally formulated by Julius Wallliausen, using results of the studies of various scholars of the preceding century. Wellhausen, a brilliant scholar whose synthesis of the documentary hypothesis was brilliantly accomplished, has been compared in the field of Old Testament studies to Charles Darwin in the wider sphere of modern thought.*! According to his hypothesis, the Pentateuch is not a unified work, written by one author (Moses), but is @ composite work, formed from four inajor pre-existing sources: the Yahwist (J), the Elehist (E), the Deuteroriomic (D), and the Priestly (P). According to Wellhausen’s hypothesis, the primeval history in Genesis 1-11 is actually a composite of two of these sources, the oldest, J, and the latest P. The source of the ereation account in Gen. 1 is the Pricatly source, the most recent of the four sources, named because of the prominence it gives to the worship of God, religious institutions, and genealogies and other records. “The attribution of Genesis 1 to the Priestly source is of fandamental impor- tance for snderstanding the account of creation with which Genesis opens. ‘That source is dated from the time of the Babylonian exile and its aftermath. Its interest in creation is given expression precisely at the time when Tsrack was experiencing the "formlessness and void" (cf: Gen. 1:2) left by the de- struction of Jerusalem and the temple and the deportation and exile in Baby- Jon. It coincides with a parallelinterest in new creation expressed by another cexilic author, Deutero-Isaiah. Such conceras for the historical context of the narrative, and other similar ones, are anathema to those who regard the Bible as "perspicuous" history and cling tenaciously to a view of unified authorship. A second important nineteenth century development facilitating understand ing of the historical context of the Old Testament and especially of the Gen- ‘sis creation stories, came from the Religio-Historical School of Interpreta~ tion, sometimes called ‘comparative religion’ in English. Aided by numerous arehaeological discoveries and decipherment of ancient texts, the religious literatures of the Near East became accessible to scholars who could then ‘compare phenomena in the various religions. The Bible was then placed next to other ancient Near Eastern religions to determine parallels, differences and lites of influence. Such study enlarged dramatically the perspective on the Old Testament, placing it into the context of the Near Eastern world and Ding the boundaries of it recorded history back to the period before 61 ‘There were, as might be expected, mixed results fromm the methodical com- parison of the Bible with other literatures and of Lsraeite culture with that of other nations. But in the course of the debate which ensued between sta- dents of comparative religion, biblical exegetes and theologians, a certain equilibrium was reached, It became increasingly clear that the inspired nat- ture of the biblical books was in no way compromised by these findings, and that, in fact, more extensive and more accurate knowledge of che historical realities of lorae’ life could only enhance study of the Old Testament. More- over, the biblical writings themselves make no secret of Israel's dealings with her neighbors, especially in Babylonia. It is there that Israel locates the origin of the patriarch Abraham and later, the people wese deported there in extle. Influence of Babylonia on Israel, far from being surprising, is really tovally predictable. Moreover, parallels to the Genesis creation stories, such as are Found in the Babylonian epic, Enuma Blish have been helpful, both in show- ing points of contact and points where the Genesis story clearly stands in contrast to its pagan neighbor on the question of origins. Uthe biblical text is, as fundamentalists say, “fully historical and perspicuous,” then it appears to them that to know what a text in the Bible say is to know what it mears."®2 They have no need of historical studies to interpret accu- rately the intended meaning of the author. The unfortunate side effect of this of this warrowing of perspective is that the historical meaning, and thus fhe literal meaning, of the text is lost. This approach to reading the Scrip- tures actually leads to ignorance of the Bible in its historicity; with regard to the book of Genesis it leads to a literalistic and "simplistic reading’ rather than to the scientific account of human and cosmic origins based on evi- dence, which it claims to offer. In his comparison of the scientist and the theologian, the physicist, Paul Davies, enumerates the advantages of the scientific method with its flexibility and openness in pursuing knowledge. He also points to the disadvantages which he sees to the theologian in possessing a revelation to which he must adhere, come what may. The fandamentalist view of the biblical revelation, which is also the creationist view, would seem to lend credence to Davies’ exi- tique. A strict view of inspiration and inerrancy applied to the whole Bible in all areas of knowledge upon which it might speak, including science, com- bined with a literalistic interpretation of the Scriptures, makes biblical revelation appear to be an albatross around the neck. However, it must be recognized that this view reduces the Scriptures to the level of a textbook in science and history. It actually ends up by distorting the very revelation that it claims to hang on to for dear life. Pethaps, the most unfortunate conse- quence of creationism is that mentioned by Bruce Vawter: that the pseudosci- tence which the creationists produce is welcome to the opponents of Chris-62 tianity, who are thus spared having to, deal with important Christian thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas and others.4 The creation account in Genesis of- fers light vitally important to science as it seeks to understand the origins of the’world and of life. Unfortunately, controversies engendered by creation séienie tends to obscure that light. IL. Contribution of Gen.1 to Dialogue of Theology and Science ‘The Bible does not present a science or a history in any currently accepted understanding of these terms. This is above all true with regard to its ac counts of the origins of the world and of man. There is then no inherent conflict between the Bible and science, and more specifically, no inherent conflict between Genesis and science. But to say that the Bible is not a book of stience nor of scientific history, is not to say that it has nothing to say to science. Neither is it to suggest that the Bible has nothing to offer to those who live in a world so profoundly influenced, for good and ill, by the find- ings of science. Our task in this second part of the paper is to consider what the creation account in Genesis 1 has to say which might be of abiding value in the contemporary world A: Preliminary Considerations 1. Literary Genre The book of Genesis is the story of the origins of the human race6 and of the Israelite people. The primeval history recounted in its first eleven chapters covers the vast period from ereation to the appearance of Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, a period inaccessible to direct historical inves. tigation; the second major section, Gen. 12-50, recounts the story of four generations of Hebrew patriarchs, ending at a point some 400 years before the Exodus, with the Hebrews living in Egypt. This is a period within record. ? However difficult the question might appear for the modern person, for the Bible, the fact is clear and inescapable: the world is not eternal: it had a beginning — a belief which of necessity calls forth the corollary, that the world will have an end. The details which follow in Gen. 1 about how the be- ginning took place are cast in anthropomorphic and figurative language and thus neither contradict nor support any particular scientific hypothesis about how the beginning happened, as for example, that popularly known as the "Big Bang." But it docs run counter to a view of the world a+ eternal, without beginning or end. b) At the beginning, God creates.56 Once again, the Bible takes for granted a proposition which has been prob- Jematie for many, especially in the modern scientific age. There is not the slightest pause to justify the claim implicit in the statement of creation; namely, that God is, already existing outside and independent of, the crea- tion for which he is, by his own will, the source of all life. It is simply taken as a fact. The God who creates utterly transcends the creation, every part of which depends on him absolutely for existence, every part of which is related to him as creature to creator. ‘The word used for God’s act of creating (bara’®? in Gen. 1:1 (cf. Gen 1:27; 2:8-4), has a unique sense, far removed from the overused and trivialized no- tion of "ereating’ in contemporary parlance, where the word can refer to the latest style in fashions, or the studied attempts at originality made by an aspiring writer. The Hebrew word translated "to create" (bara’) is never used ‘with any subject other than God. It carries the notion of an action which 67 completely new and extraordinary (cf. Is 41:20; 48:68, 65:17) and of creation accomplished without effort. While in itself, the word, bara’, does not signify “creation from nothing,” this idea may be suggested in the fact that the verb is never followed by any indication of already existing material used by God in creating.>® Other words used in the Genesis account to designate God's action in creation (e.g. "separate," "name," "form'), are best understood as ‘explicitations of God's unique creative act, expressed in the verb bara’. Use of the word in the context of redemption, which is frequent in post-exilic literature, broadens the notion of the concept of God's unique creative action to include all his activity in leading the nation or the individual person from nonexistence to the fullness of life.°? ©) God is the creator of all things. ‘The general designation for that which God creates is "heaven and earth.” “This is a Hebrew way of saying “all things” There is nothing in the created world which has existence apart from God. All things are therefore united jn common dependence upon him for life. Moreover, the fact that the world ina unity in it creation by God indicates that the whole and the individual parts can be explained in terms of the Greator’s wisdom and rational plan and are not the result of chance. The world is thus "a coherent totality of things,” to use the words of Stanley Jaki. Just as the Bible assumes the exis- tence of God, so too it assumes the existence of a coherent universe created by God. The Bible, says Jaki, is "too sane" to need proof of the existence of 4) Without any resistance to his power, God creates. ‘The description of the "formlessness and void" (toku wabohu), the darkness and the stormy waters which exist before God begins his creative activity, has provoked the question of whether, in Gen 1: 2, there emerges some remnant of an carlier mythology in which God must conquer hostile forces before be- ing abie to create the world, or a parallel to ancient cosmogonies in which a struggle for power takes place. However, the description makes no sugges- tion that God encounters any forces hostile to his creative activity and no indicationof a struggle. It seems rather that the 'formlessness and void" and the storm are a way of describing the pre-creation situation. Perhaps it is a way of expressing "nothingness" in a language which finds abstraction diffi- cult. In any case, there is no justification in the text for understanding the chaos and the yorm as preexistent with God atthe beginning and "before" the beginning.© Had they been thus pre-existent, they would have stood outside the realm of created things, and in that fact, be like God.68 2. Special Creation and Dignity of Man (vss. 26-31) The pinnacle of God's creative activity is, of course, man, created on the sixth day and set apart, in several ways from the rest of creation. The intro- ductory formula to the account of his creation differs from that preceding God's other acts of creation. Each of the other acts of creation is prefaced by the formula,"and God said." Then follows the creative word of command, which brings each successive being into existence. With the creation of man, however, the formula is more solemn, and in "Let us make man. Another point which separates man from the rest of creation is that he, both male and female, is created according to the image (elem) and likeness (demuth) of God, not like the other animals, which were created, each ac- cording to its kind (Gen. 1:24). The Hebrew word translated as *image’ de- notes a sculpted statue or a reproduction, as exact as possible, of an original; "likeness’ refers to resemblance or model. It is clear enough, not only from Gen. 1, but from the Bible which it introduces, that God is not seen as him- self material in any way. How then can man, who is material, be said to be his "image and likeness"? Two answers are given in the text to define the uniqueness of man. First, he is to have dominion over the rest of creation, and secondly, he is to pass on to others the life which God has given him. ‘The dominion (radah) which man is to exercise over the rest of the earth is not, as Bruce Vawter puts it, a "benign presidency over a docile and pacific nature." Rather the language, which is applied to all men, to the whole of ‘mankind, is the language of royalty. Israel's view here is significantly differ- ‘ent from other nations in the Near East, in which the king was considered divine, but other men were not, and were, often enough, reduced to cruel slavery. The view is also probably significantly different than that held in- creasingly in the contemporary world, in which man’s very existence is seen ‘8a threat to nature on which he feeds as on a parasite. Though certainly not the basis of a torturing of nature to extract its secrets, a pillaging of nature to satisfy immediate desires, Genesis insists on the domination of nat- ure by man. Tt gives no encouragement at all to a concept of man that puts him at the disposal of nature, that effectively reduces him to his former status of yoke-man to the natural forces from which Genesis de- dlared him free. .. . The point in Genesis is that man is the norm of what an ordered world ought to be, not some cluster of su Posedly higher abstractions that are presumed to govern him.© i 69 Clearly, in Genesis, there is no mystique of nature, but insistence that man must act as God in the midst of creation and therefore must order it, making, decisions about how that order is best effected in the interests of man, ‘The other way in which man is to resemble God in the creation is by increas- ing and filling the earth, thus allowing his "domination’ to extend through the whole earth. The increase and expansion of life which God's command ordains is carried out only by the power of the One who is the source of all life. As God has blessed other living creatures so that they might reproduce, s0 he blesses the man, male and female. The frutfulness of Gog!’ blessing is seen in the various genealogies scattered throughout Genesis.°° The dis- tinctive feature of that blessing is that itis spoken in direct address, marking the initiation of God's communication with the man he has created. Besides the blessing, he also allocates food. "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with Seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food!" (2:30). ‘There are a number of points in the narrative of the creation of man in Gen 1 which are much discussed and called into question today. Above all there is the question of man’s place in the creation. The valid issue of responsible and careful use of the resources of the earth is often tangled up with a view of man and his place in creation which runs completely counter to the bibli- cal view. Often this view is merely stated in terms of the need to rethink, in view of modern scientific findings — of which evolution surely must be one of the prime ones — the position of man in the world, man in the midst of other living beings. A good example of such "rethinking" of man's place in the world is enunci- ated by Ruth Nanda Anshen in her introduction to a series of books called Convergence. She describes man as searching for his place in the cosmic scheme (xie-xii). Gone are the days, Anshen says, when "we were 30 anthro- pomorphic as to exclude as inferior such other aspects of our relatives as ani- mals, plants, galaxies or other species — even inorganic matter” (p. xiv). ‘The biblical view of the creation of man, in Gen. I and elsewhere insists on the special dignity of man by God’s design against any attempt, ancient or modern, to reduce man to a status of subservience to or equality with other ‘created beings. It expresses an elevated conception of man, based on God's creative word and action, 3. ‘The Sabbath: Fulfillment of Creation70 ‘Though the creation of man is the high point of God's creative work, the culmination of the week is the God's observance of the Sabbath. The ereation story is structured in accordance with the Jewish week in which six days of work are followed by rest on the seventh day. When the first creation story ‘was written in the post-exilic period, observance of the Sabbath was already an institution in Israel. At fist glance it appears as though the retrojection ‘of the sabbath observance to creation is an anthropomorphism whereby God's rest is actually being patterned after that of man, However, it isa theological idea. If creation is seen as a work of salvation, indeed the first of God's works of salvation, then the rest of the seventh day is the time for entering into covenant with those he has created. In Ex. 31:12-17, which comes from the Priestly tradition, thers is a connection between the Sabbath and the Covenant. The Sabbath isa sign of the Covenant between God and his crea- tion.°7 God blesses and makes holy this day which, as a part of the newly created week, belongs to man who, being in the image and likeness of God, ‘sto consecrate the day by rest. This fits in perfectly with the dignity of man, who is not created to be a slave, but to rule over the creation. Summary and Conclusions From all that has preceded, it is clear that creationism really is a “burden for the faith,” as Cardinal Ratzinger termed it® Although proponents of crea- tion-science attempt to answer with faith the secularization which they see in modernity, their interpretation of Scripture is flawed and the message they Present is consequently also flawed. Their reading of the Bible, and speci «ally of the creation accounts, rests upon a narrow conception of one of the most central of Christian mysteries, the doctrine of the inspiration of Scrip- ture, one very important area in which we confront God's entry into human history. By reducing the clement of history in the Scriptures, creationists pre- sent an inaccurate picture of Christian revelation and, we would argue, end by damaging the cause they hope to remedy. The need for theologians who accept the Bible as revelation to address the implications of the many discoveries made by science cannot be ignored Man's place in creation is, according to biblical revelation, wonderful. and amazing. For Christians, the wonder of the creation of man is developed stil further in Christ, who is the new Adam standing at the head of a new crea- tion. The findings of modern science offer much new and profound insight into the mystery of creation and life. At the same time, these findings empha- size man’s relationship to the rest of the material universe. To such an extent is this true that we might speak, with Dr. Leon Kass, of a challenge to the Bible's view of man, n Is there any elevated view of human life and goodness that is proof against the belief that man is just a collection of molecules, an acci- dent of the stage of evolution, a freakish speck of mind in the mindless universe, fundamentally no different from other living — or even non-living — things? What chance have the ideas of free- dom and dignity, under even any high-minded humanistic dispensa- tion, against the teachings of strict determinism in behavior and survival as the only natural concerns of life? There is proof against diminished views of man and there is the certain pos- sibility of human freedom and dignity in the view of man as created in the image and likeness of God and placed over the creation to rule it in his stead. Contemplation of the mystery of creation as expounded in the Bible, especially in Gen. I, can lead to the same cry of wonder as is heard from the Psalmist in Ps. 8. ‘When I look at thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the star which thou hast established; what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou didst care for him? : .. Thou hast given him dominion over the works of thy hands; thou has put all things under his feet . . . (Ps. 8:3-4,8). Endnotes 1, John Skinner, A Critical and Exygetical Commentary on Genesis (2nd ed Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980, repr. 1956), p. vi 2 Skinner, Commentary, p- 5. 3. Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Moder Science (Atlanta: Jon Kos Pr, 1984 pr So ako Pl Devin, od and th New Phe {New Yor: Touchstone Boks 1989) whe speakeofthe ecenephenomenon brane wuiou resurrection ofan Darwin etinent rough the efor ot eerie 4. These ral merpretaionf the Scrptres practiced by fundamentals orignted a the tine ofthe Reformation, when Protest, ejecting Trad Sead the Magram oft Chcy erp only wSpres raat. This mode ofimerpretion ane in inportance a beral Prot tonminnacepied methods ofenmgee devalped aa rena of he Ealgh- Shment See“ Inerpretaton ef the Bil the Church Fone! Bi lcal Commision Rome: Libera Edie Vaan, 1995), . 70) Bruce Vane, “Creationism, Crenve Mise ofthe Bible” i Bs Gad a Caton The ats Case gains ron Sarcy eed by Roland Moshe Frye New Works Chars Srna Sony 198) pp. 71-93,R 14 15, 16. te 18, 19, 20 21 22, 2, % Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning ..: A Catholic Undertanding of Ue Story of Creation and the Fall, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), pp. 11-12. Ratzinger, "in the Beginning," pp. x-xi. Ratzinger, “inthe Beginning." pp. xix. Dei verbum, 24, John Paul Il, "Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution,” ‘Origins 26 (Nov. 14, 1996), 350-52) Davies, God and the New Phys, p. 6 Ratzinger, "In the Beginning,” p. 6. This does not mean thatthe same certitude attaches to the many hypotheses concerning how evolution took place. Leon Kass, Toward a More Natural Science: Bilogy and Human Affairs (New York: The Free Press, Macmillan, 1985), pp. 56. See Kass, Towards a More Natural Science, p- 3. Ratzinger, "Inthe Beginning," p. 17. "Interpretation of the Bible," PBC, p. 70. For a comprehensive coverage of the different forms of creationism, see Lloyd R, Bailey, Genesis, Creation, and Creationiom (New York: Paulist Press, 1993), pp. 78. Bailey, Genesis, Creation, and Creaticniom, p14. ‘The term “inspiration” was used for the firs ime in a magisterial document by the Council of Florence in 1441 to speak of God's authorship of Seriptare ‘The word "inerrancy" was introduced fairly late. It appears that it was first sed by Thomas Homes in 1834. Ithas been litle used in documents ofthe isterium, and never in papal encyelicas, ‘The Spanish Dominican, Melchior Cano (1509-1860) thought that not only the words of Scripture, but even the marks of punctuation, were dictated by the Holy Spirit, and thus, that all falsehood was excluded from the Bible. Similarly, a century or so later, the Swiss Reform proposed that, not only have the inspired books been preserved free from corruption, but that both consonants and vowels of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament were i ‘spired. See Raymond Collins, Induction tothe New Testament, (Garden Ci N.Y Doubleday Image Books, 1987), pp. 332-34 ‘Typical isthe theory of Daniel von Haneberg (12845). He distinguished three 'ypes of inspiration: antecedent for the prophets, in which the human author is a largely passive instrument who merely writes the thoughts that come 10 hhim from God; concomitant for authors of poetry and wisdom, who were saved from error by the preventative action of the Holy Spirit, but who uses his own resources to develop thoughts awakened in him by God, and conse quent for writers of the historical books, who write as any other book is written, with their books being elevated to the status of inspired by the Church in making the declaration that the book is canonical, See Collins, Introduction, pp. 336-37, Pope Leo XIII, "Providentsimus Deus" (1893), Vawter, "Creationism," pp. 75-76. 27, 28 30, 31 32, 34. 36. 37. 38, 39, 40. au 42. 43. 44. 46. 3 ‘This isthe meaning suggested by Pius XII in Divino oflat spit when he says that exegesis dicerns and defines "that sense ofthe biblical words which ir talled eral. so that the mind of the nuthor may be made clear* The New Joome Diba! Commentary (Englewood Clie Prentice Hal. 1990) nas Raley, Cena, Creation, and Craton, pp. 8-9. ‘The Pontifical Bilieal Commission in ts tnapsis of fundamentalism, tates that i “baie problem” isthe rein to "take ino account the historical characier ofthe biblical revelation. (Interpretaon of the Bibl, pp. 70-71. “Interpretation of the Bible” PBC, pp. 70-72; Bulky, Genes, Cetion, and Gratin, pp 12 Herbere isn, The Old Testament in Modern Research Phila: Forces Press 1966), 1. Bailey, Gonit, p. 134, aver, "Creation, pp, 72-73, Vawter considers the advocates of creation science to be “hypoctiseal”becatite they cai wo be siete wile they are really "sectarian religious" who by ars’ hope to win equal ine in the pb fc achool for thei version of origins which i reall based on a Braise reading of the Bible. Vawaor trms the “acioncs" which they construct "a ayth Vawter, "Creationism," p 7, ‘The name “Genes ie tansiteraton of the Greek tle for the hook. The Greek word mean “bith or “origin” Besides Gen. 12, there area number of other bibl texts which speak of Creaton-e4, Pu 8, 359, 19689, 18; Prov 822-31; Jor 31.95.97, Nek 38. ELA. Speier, Oma, Anchor Bile (Garden City, NX: Doubleday & Co, 1968), p. i Claus Westermann, Gti 1-11: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub- lishing House, 198) p. 90. Westman, Gey Pp. 6465 “Though the Prey srurce thought to be posexlic, there i evidence of ‘ater that is much earer, eg genenlogien Probably the source whichis eigmied F cevelopel over ug period uf dane, See Speer, Cones pp Bruce Vawter, On Gms: A New Reading (Garden Giy, NY. Doubleday & Company, 1977 p29, Vawter, On Genin, pp. 3031. This conception ofthe story of creation as “erious hiory” sone hat Vaweer inset be prserecd at principe of interpretation. Skinner, Cited Comment, pn, cf, Westermann, Genesis 1-11, p. 90. Ghaies Hart, Bgzninge Goes nd Modem Seimct Bad rev, edi Dt bbuque: Priory Prey, 1964) pp. 28-24, Gehard von Rad, Gnesi 4 Commer tory (rv. ed's Pia: Wensinster Prem, 1973), p. 49, Rateinger, in the Begining! p22 Vawter, On Gna, pp. 25-26; Westermann, Gon -11, pp: 6455.4 46. 47 43. 50. 51. 52 53. 5A, 55, 56. 87, 58, 59, Skinner, Grital Commentary, p. 6. Fiauret siggents tht the seven day week may ako be an ad to the memory (Beginnings, pp. 29-20) Westermann, Genes 1-11, p. 90 Paul Beauchamp, Creation et separatin: etude exetique dy copie premier dela Genese (Para: Editions ds Ces, 1968), p- 123. laure, Bagbning, pp. 38-59, Beauchamp notes the strking agreement between the order of creation it Ps, 104 and that in Gen. 1. In both cases, the fia thing created is light; both fend with God rejoicing in his works. Cf. Job. 87:21-41 which begins wih creation of light and darkness and proceeds through six days of ereation (Greaion et separation, pp. 142-43). Ancient translators took vs. 1 as an independent sentence. Many modern ‘sanslators interpret the fst verse of Genesis as a subordinate claus, with vs. as the main cause: “tn che beginning, when God created heaven and arth, the earth was formless.” On the relationship between creation and redemption in arse view, see eg. Bernhard W. Anderson, "The Earth is the Lord's: An Essay on the Biblical Doctrine of Creation, in Is Gad a Gretinit? Ed, by Roland Mushat Frye (New York: Charles Seriner’s Sons, 1983), pp. 179-80; Angel Nunez Gonzalez, Adan y Eon: El hombre y su porvenir (Madrid: Ediciones Paalinas, 1990), pp. 45-47; Horst Detrich Preuss, Old Tesament Theology, Vo. I (Louis ville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), pp. 285-97 Glaus Westermann, Gerais I-11, pp. 94, 97, Vaweer, On Gms, p. 275 Speiser, Gents, p 6 Davies, God and the New Physics, p. 9. The author gives a summary of some compelling reasons science has for postulating a beginning to the physical world (pp: 10-14), “The -wotd for God in Gen. 1:1 is Elokin, the most common word for God in the Bible, The form used bere is phiral, though instances ofboth singular and plural abound in the Bible. The plural, when applied to the one God of {srach is always accompanied by a singular verb and any pronoun whic re- places itis always in the singular. I is sometimes called a "plural of intensity” ora pluralof majesty” ee Von Rad, Genesis pp. 58-54; reuse, OT Theology, pp 147-49, ‘Te date, no parallelsto this word for creation have hen found in other Sem- ite languages. In the Old Testament, i is used, for the most part in exile and postexiic terature. Se Theological Dictionary ofthe New Testament, ed. by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (Grand Rapids, ML: Wil- liam B. Eerdmans Publshing Company, 1975 (IT, 245) ‘An explicit statement of fith in creation from nothing is found in 2 Me 17:28. There the mother of the sons of Maccabees, a she encoUrages her sons to martyrdom, says © one of them: "I beseech you, my child, to look atthe ‘heaven and the earth and see everything that isin them, aud recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed.” Gonzaler, Adan, pp- 44-46, 15 Stanley Jaki, Chence or Reality and Other Essays (Lanham, MD.: Universisy Press of America, 1986), pp. 161-81. The view of the world as created by God alo counters panthelt or panentheist conceptions ofthe world as sel creating, An example of a conception of the universe which would be in opposition wo ke biblical notion i that expressed by Ruth Nanda Anshen in hher introduction to Creation and. Evolution: Myh or Realy? (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), p. xi: "This univer of which we human beings are particles may be defined 22 living dynamic process of unfolding. Itisa breathing universe, ts respiration being only one of the many rhythms ofits life. Tt ie evolution sell. See the introduction Creation and Evolution. For discussion of the realty of the external world 38 a coherent whole, see Stanley Jaki, Uniere and Creed (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press),9-10 and patti Jaki sys thatthe Bible call for “conversion” to the realty of the world asa coherent universe, It isnot that vis ft is known only by revel tion, bur rather that in the oodern period, dhe world has been converted into a concept and the ego, not the realty of the universe, is the starting point (pp. 77-79). He ches John Henry Newman who, inthe nineteeth cen= {ary thought itimperative to profess rm asurance concerning the existence ‘Ste external world: We are sure beyond all hazard ofa mistake, that our own self isnot dhe only being existing: that there isan external world; that itis a system with parts and a whole,» wniverse carried on by laws; and the ature affected by the past (Universe and Cred, p. 75). . Most commentators on Genesis agree that, if there is any mythological che- iment in Gen. 1:2, i has been transformed in light of Israel’ faith. See, e.g. Hauret, Beginings, p. 45; Westermann, Gewss 1-11, pp. 102-04; Skinner, Ghtical Commentary, pp. 14-17. Tis dificult co speak of what precedes creation because apart from creation there is nether tine noF spate. “Before” is therefore not a totaly accurate way of speaking of the eternity in which God exis. However, having a Inowledged the deficiency of language to express this mystery, tis necessary to then use the langusge, or be alent. See Davies, God and the New Physics, 135-34 “The account in Gen. # makes this ye clearer than Gen. 1. There God forms rman "fom the dust ofthe earth" a symbol for his material component. Vawter, On Genesis, p53 Westermann (Geest I-11, p. 88) says the expresion to bless, with God as subject, means “to bestow with a dynamism to increase.” Roland de Vaux, Ancien Irae: I Life and Inatiuions (New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1961), pp. 480-82 Rattinger, "Inthe Beginnings" p. 17 Kass, Toward a More Natural Since, p. 6.