G
GratiaCorpusChristi
Guest
Having built up to this over a considerable amount of time and by starting a number of preliminary threads (linked below), allow me to finally make my case for the framework interpretation of Genesis 1.
First of all, I take it as a proper hermeneutical principle that when the broad scientific consensus and our interpretation of a biblical passage contradict, we should reevaluate our interpretation. We don't read plainly geocentric passages geocentrically because everyone knows the earth revolves around the sun. But even if you don't accept this, sound exegesis still doesn't rule out reinterpretations purely on the basis of text. The scientific contradiction is merely an impetus- one of many. Even within considering the scientific consensus, one may interpret a text different (St. Augustine, long before the rise of modern cosmology and evolutionary biology, certainly did; so did Peter Abelard and St. Anselm). I say this simply because I'd prefer not to debate this point here and stick instead to exegesis of the actual text. If you want to start another thread on the relationship between soundness of interpretation and the scientific consensus, be my guest. But that's not the aim of this thread.
Second, there are those of us who believe that a purely literalistic reading of Genesis introduces a contradiction not only between science and Scripture, but within Scripture- namely, the ordering in the creation of plants and people which switches from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2. I understand there is debate on the phrase 'of the field,' but follow the link to that thread. Please do not debate it here.
Third, many Scriptural literalists will critique my understanding based on the claim that there is no apparent break between Genesis 11 and 12, and that since the latter (Genesis 12-50) is historical narrative, the previous must be as well (Genesis 1-11). Despite all the counterarguments against this claim (all of Genesis is mythologized, there is a break, history as a narrative genre didn't exist until considerably later with the writings of Herodotus, etc.) lets accept this claim for the moment. I have no interest in claiming that Genesis 1 is not historical, because topical arrangement in historical narrative is not unprecidented in Scripture. Luke and Matthew arrange the temptations of Christ by Satan in the desert differently. A non-sequential, non-chronological depiction of events is a perfectly plausible literary device in ancient historical narrative. I am not making the case that Genesis 1 is not historical- God and God alone did indeed create all that exists- but merely that it is arranged within a topical, literary framework.
So without further ado...
The Framework Interpretation
The framework interpretation of Genesis 1 is actually quite simple. Personally, having now learned about the framework, I find it had to miss its implications whenever I meditate on these first verses of Scripture...
First a broad look at the actual text:
In day 1, God creates the light of day and the dark of night.
In day 2, God creates the waters of the sea below and the waters of the sky above.
In day 3, God creates the dry land between the two realms of the waters, and then (as a sort of parenthesis) fills it with vegetation.
In day 4, God creates the sun, moon, and stars.
In day 5, God creates the fish, sea creatures, birds, and other flying creatures.
In day 6, God creates land animals and humanity.
And last on the seventh day, God rests.
Looking at this, it is easy to pair up the first set of three days with the next set: days 1 and 4, 2 and 5, and 3 and 6. The first three days represent realms, and the next three days represent rulers.
On day 1, God creates light/day and dark/night, and then on day 4 creates the sun to rule over the realm of light/day and the moon to rule over the darkness/night.
On day 2, God creates the waters of the sea below and the waters of the sky above, and then on day 5 creates the fish and other sea animals to rule over the sea and the birds to rule over the sky.
On day 3, God creates the dry ground, and then on day 6 creates land animals and humans to rule over it.
This framework is even punctuated by the use of 'let there be x' phrasing in the first three days (when God calls realms into existence) and 'let x give forth y' phrasing in the second set of three days (when God calls the rulers into existence from the realms).
The existence of the framework is virtually undeniable. The only real question is whether this framework is a specifically literary framework designed to punctuate the Sabbath and show the orderliness of God's creation (contrary to the chaotic cosmologies of the ancient Near East), or not.
Personally, I'm rather certain that it is exactly such a literary framework that shows the innate orderliness of creation, that God alone is the creator and not a set of polytheistic Gods, that the creations themselves are not divine, and that the whole of creation is geared toward the finality of Sabbath rest.
It's quite a beautiful piece of literature on which we can all collectively meditate. And it seems considerably more in tune with the concerns of ancient Israel than any actual affirmation concerning physical cosmology.
First of all, I take it as a proper hermeneutical principle that when the broad scientific consensus and our interpretation of a biblical passage contradict, we should reevaluate our interpretation. We don't read plainly geocentric passages geocentrically because everyone knows the earth revolves around the sun. But even if you don't accept this, sound exegesis still doesn't rule out reinterpretations purely on the basis of text. The scientific contradiction is merely an impetus- one of many. Even within considering the scientific consensus, one may interpret a text different (St. Augustine, long before the rise of modern cosmology and evolutionary biology, certainly did; so did Peter Abelard and St. Anselm). I say this simply because I'd prefer not to debate this point here and stick instead to exegesis of the actual text. If you want to start another thread on the relationship between soundness of interpretation and the scientific consensus, be my guest. But that's not the aim of this thread.
Second, there are those of us who believe that a purely literalistic reading of Genesis introduces a contradiction not only between science and Scripture, but within Scripture- namely, the ordering in the creation of plants and people which switches from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2. I understand there is debate on the phrase 'of the field,' but follow the link to that thread. Please do not debate it here.
Third, many Scriptural literalists will critique my understanding based on the claim that there is no apparent break between Genesis 11 and 12, and that since the latter (Genesis 12-50) is historical narrative, the previous must be as well (Genesis 1-11). Despite all the counterarguments against this claim (all of Genesis is mythologized, there is a break, history as a narrative genre didn't exist until considerably later with the writings of Herodotus, etc.) lets accept this claim for the moment. I have no interest in claiming that Genesis 1 is not historical, because topical arrangement in historical narrative is not unprecidented in Scripture. Luke and Matthew arrange the temptations of Christ by Satan in the desert differently. A non-sequential, non-chronological depiction of events is a perfectly plausible literary device in ancient historical narrative. I am not making the case that Genesis 1 is not historical- God and God alone did indeed create all that exists- but merely that it is arranged within a topical, literary framework.
So without further ado...
The Framework Interpretation
The framework interpretation of Genesis 1 is actually quite simple. Personally, having now learned about the framework, I find it had to miss its implications whenever I meditate on these first verses of Scripture...
First a broad look at the actual text:
In day 1, God creates the light of day and the dark of night.
In day 2, God creates the waters of the sea below and the waters of the sky above.
In day 3, God creates the dry land between the two realms of the waters, and then (as a sort of parenthesis) fills it with vegetation.
In day 4, God creates the sun, moon, and stars.
In day 5, God creates the fish, sea creatures, birds, and other flying creatures.
In day 6, God creates land animals and humanity.
And last on the seventh day, God rests.
Looking at this, it is easy to pair up the first set of three days with the next set: days 1 and 4, 2 and 5, and 3 and 6. The first three days represent realms, and the next three days represent rulers.
On day 1, God creates light/day and dark/night, and then on day 4 creates the sun to rule over the realm of light/day and the moon to rule over the darkness/night.
On day 2, God creates the waters of the sea below and the waters of the sky above, and then on day 5 creates the fish and other sea animals to rule over the sea and the birds to rule over the sky.
On day 3, God creates the dry ground, and then on day 6 creates land animals and humans to rule over it.
This framework is even punctuated by the use of 'let there be x' phrasing in the first three days (when God calls realms into existence) and 'let x give forth y' phrasing in the second set of three days (when God calls the rulers into existence from the realms).
The existence of the framework is virtually undeniable. The only real question is whether this framework is a specifically literary framework designed to punctuate the Sabbath and show the orderliness of God's creation (contrary to the chaotic cosmologies of the ancient Near East), or not.
Personally, I'm rather certain that it is exactly such a literary framework that shows the innate orderliness of creation, that God alone is the creator and not a set of polytheistic Gods, that the creations themselves are not divine, and that the whole of creation is geared toward the finality of Sabbath rest.
It's quite a beautiful piece of literature on which we can all collectively meditate. And it seems considerably more in tune with the concerns of ancient Israel than any actual affirmation concerning physical cosmology.
