The Lost World of Genesis One (7 page)

First, we recognize that there is no ancient dictionary of Hebrew that gives us the definitions of all of the words (especially
not in English). Instead we rely on the careful work done by commentators and translators over the centuries. How do these schol ars figure out the meaning of words? The same way all of us do
in whatever language we speak-by usage.2 The meanings of
words are established and determined by the ways in which they
are used. This includes the kinds of sentences they are used in,
the words they can be compared to (synonyms or antonyms), and
the words they are used in connection with. For nouns this
means what verbs they take; for verbs it includes what subjects
or objects are associated with them. It is context that tells us
whether a word is used metaphorically or with an idiomatic or
technical sense.' Consequently a scholar who says that a Hebrew word means this or that should offer evidence from usage
to support his or her findings. Having been provided a list of
references in such an analysis, even someone who does not know
Hebrew can double check the data. So, for instance, when I say
that all the occurrences of bara' have God as the subject or implied subject, an English reader can look at all the occurrences
and see that this is so.

Now the analysis can begin. What can be said about the Hebrew verb bara'? First, there is no passage in the Old Testament
that offers an explanatory gloss for bara'-that is, that says "by
bard l mean X" So, as usual, we must depend on circumstantial,
contextual analysis: subjects, objects and related terms.

SUBJECTS

The verb bara' occurs about fifty times in the Old Testament. As
referred to above, deity is always either the subject or the implied
subject (in passive constructions) of the verb. It can therefore be
confidently asserted that the activity is inherently a divine activity
and not one that humans can perform or participate in. This observation is widely discussed, and on this conclusion all commentators agree.

OBJECTS

It is of interest that few commentators discuss the objects of the
verb, but this is the most important issue for our analysis. Since we
are exploring what constitutes creative activity (specifically, material or functional), then the nature of that which has been created
is of utmost significance. If the objects of the verb are consistently
material that would be important information; likewise if they are
consistently functional. Of course the profile is unlikely to be so
straightforward. Ambiguous contexts are bound to exist, so a bit of
methodology must be discussed.

Theoretically, the verb could be broad enough to include either
material or functional activity. For that matter, we might conclude that it involves (at least in some cases) both material and
functional. Assuming that there will be ambiguous cases (and
there are), it is important to see if we have any contexts which
must be understood in material terms or which must be understood in functional terms. If all occurrences were either material
or ambiguous, we could not claim support for a functional understanding. If all occurrences were either functional or ambiguous,
we could not claim clear support for a material understanding. If
there are clear examples that can be only functional, and other
clear examples that can only be material, then we would conclude
that the verb could work in either kind of context, and ambiguous
cases would have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Table 1 provides a comprehensive list of the objects of bara'.4 (See
p. 42.)

The grammatical objects of the verb can be summarized in the
following categories:

cosmos (10, including new cosmos)

people in general (10)

specific groups of people (6)

Table 1

specific individuals or types of individuals (5)

creatures (2)

phenomena (e.g., darkness) (10)

components of cosmic geography (3)

condition (1, pure heart)

This list shows that grammatical objects of the verb are not
easily identified in material terms, and even when they are, it is
questionable that the context is objectifying them.5 That is, no
clear example occurs that demands a material perspective for the
verb, though many are ambiguous.6 In contrast, a large percentage of the contexts require a functional understanding. These
data cannot be used to prove a functional ontology, but they offer
support that existence is viewed in functional rather than material terms, as is true throughout the rest of the ancient world. If
the Israelites understood the word bird' to convey creation in
functional terms, then that is the most "literal" understanding
that we can achieve. Such an understanding does not represent
an attempt to accommodate modern science or to neutralize the
biblical text. The truest meaning of a text is found in what the
author and hearers would have thought.

This view finds support from an unexpected direction. It has
long been observed that in the contexts of bard no materials for
the creative act are ever mentioned, and an investigation of all the
passages mentioned above substantiate that claim. How interesting it is that these scholars then draw the conclusion that bard
implies creation out of nothing (ex nihilo). One can see with a moment of thought that such a conclusion assumes that "create" is a
material activity. To expand their reasoning for clarity's sake here:
Since "create" is a material activity (assumed on their part), and
since the contexts never mention the materials used (as demonstrated by the evidence), then the material object must have been brought into existence without using other materials (i.e., out of
nothing). But one can see that the whole line of reasoning only
works if one can assume that bares' is a material activity. In contrast, if, as the analysis of objects presented above suggests, bard
is a functional activity, it would be ludicrous to expect that materials are being used in the activity. In other words, the absence of
reference to materials, rather than suggesting material creation
out of nothing, is better explained as indication that bardis not a
material activity but a functional one. This is not a view that has
been rejected by other scholars; it is simply one they have never
considered because their material ontology was a blind presupposition for which no alternative was ever considered.

An important caveat must be noted at this point. If we conclude that Genesis 1 is not an account of material origins, we are
not thereby suggesting that God is not responsible for material
origins. I firmly believe that God is fully responsible for material
origins, and that, in fact, material origins do involve at some point
creation out of nothing. But that theological question is not the
one we are asking. We are asking a textual question: What sort of
origins account do we find in Genesis 1? Or what aspect of origins is addressed in Genesis 1? Most interpreters have generally
thought that Genesis 1 contains an account of material origins
because that was the only sort of origins that our material culture
was interested in. It wasn't that scholars examined all the possible
levels at which origins could be discussed; they presupposed the
material aspect.

Finally, we must put the verb bares' in its context in verse 1
where it tells us that "in the beginning God created the heavens
and the earth." One immediate question that would occur is, beginning of what? The answer is not transparent. We must ask
what "beginning" refers to and how verse 1 functions in relation
to the rest of the context.'

BEGINNING

In Hebrew usage this adverb typically introduces a period of time
rather than a point in time.' We can most easily see this in Job 8:7,
which speaks of the early part of Job's life, and Jeremiah 28:1,
which refers to the beginning period of Zedekiah's reign. This
usage happens to correspond with ideas that are reflected in ancient Near Eastern creation texts. Egyptian texts refer to the "first
occasion," which implies the first occurrence of an event that is to
be repeated or continued. In Akkadian the comparable term to
the Hebrew refers to the first part or first installment. All of this
information leads us to conclude that the "beginning" is a way of
talking about the seven-day period rather than a point in time prior
to the seven days.

THE ROLE OF VERSE 1

If the "beginning" refers to the seven-day period rather than to a
point in time before the seven-day period, then we would conclude that the first verse does not record a separate act of creation
that occurred prior to the seven days-but that in fact the creation
that it refers to is recounted in the seven days. This suggests that
verse 1 serves as a literary introduction to the rest of the chapter.
This suggestion is confirmed by the fact that Genesis 2:1 concludes the seven-day report with the statement that the "heavens
and earth were completed," indicating that the creation of the
heavens and earth was the work of the seven days, not something
that preceded them.

Such a conclusion is also supported by the overall structure of
the book of Genesis. All commentators have recognized the recurrent transitionary formula "This is the account (tbThdbt) of. . ."
used eleven times by the author to identify the sections of the
book of Genesis. This shows us that the author of Genesis indeed
did use initial statements as literary introductions to sections. The first of these occurs in Genesis 2:4 as the first transition from the
seven-day cosmogony to the Garden of Eden account. As a transitionary phrase it links what has come before to what comes next.
Sometimes what follows is genealogical information that offers information about, for example, what became of Esau or Ishmael.
Other times it is followed by narratives that offer information concerning, for instance, what came of Terah's family (thus the stories
of Abram). The point is that this formula can only continue an
already established sequence-it cannot begin that sequence.

The word "beginning" would be the logical term to introduce
such a sequence. It would indicate the initial period, while the
tbledot sections would introduce successive periods. If this were
the case, the book would now have twelve formally designated
sections (much more logical than eleven, considering the numbers
that have symbolic significance in the Bible).

The proposals of this chapter can be summarized by the following expanded interpretive translation of verse 1: "In the initial
period, God created by assigning functions throughout the heavens and the earth, and this is how he did it." The chapter does involve creative activities, but all in relation to the way that the ancient world thought about creation and existence: by naming,
separating and assigning functions and roles in an ordered system.
This was accomplished in the seven-day period that the text calls
"the beginning." Genesis 2:3 comes back to this in its summary as
it indicates the completion of the bard activities over the sevenday period.

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Stek, John. "What Says the Scripture?" In Portraits of Creation:
Biblical and Scientific Perspectives on the World's Formation, edited by H. J. van Till, pp. 203-65. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1990.