Genesis 1-11 - David M. Carr

Скачать книгу

after the flood (Gen 9:6). It is not lost (contrary to later Christian theology) nor limited by subsequent historical events.130

      Genesis 1:1–2:3 Within the Present (P/non-P) Context of GenesisThough Gen 1 likely was originally intended to function within an exclusively Priestly context, it now stands as the first major section of a conflated P/non-P narrative. Its broader picture of God’s creation of the cosmos and humanity forms the context for the following non-P depiction of Yhwh’s creation of the first male and female human individuals, along with animals (Gen 2). Moreover, the strong emphasis on God’s power and on the goodness of creation across Gen 1 (Gen 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31) softens and puts in perspective any implication in the following non-P narratives of the deity’s lack of control (e.g., Gen 3:22; 11:4–7) and/or a fundamental deficiency in God’s creation (e.g., Gen 6:5–7). Finally, the Gen 1 picture of God’s creation of humans as God images facilitates a rereading of Gen 2 as a more detailed account of how God created these human god-images, indeed one that paralleled certain aspects of Mesopotamian rituals for the manufacture and divine animation of cult images.131

      At the same time, a question can be raised as to how many such connections were intended by the redactor who created the present text of Genesis. On the one hand, redactional/compositional approaches to Gen 1 and other P texts would stress the idea that numerous aspects of this Priestly creation narrative were intended to function in relation to the non-P materials that it introduces.132 On the other hand, the source-conflational model to P and non-P that is advocated in this commentary would imply that many resonances of P and non-P in the present narrative, though they form part of the semiotic potential of the present text, are accidental byproducts of the combination of P and non-P texts not originally meant to stand alongside each other.

      From Exegesis to the Contemporary Significance of Gen 1This Priestly application of the “image of God” idea to all of humanity has complex potential implications for the present day. Humanity as God’s imageOn the plus side, given the widespread phenomenon of human anthropomorphic concepts of God, there is a certain elegance about P’s proposal that God had the ‘human’ form first and gave it to humans to enable human rule over the rest of creation. After all, all humans, not just kings, possess the anthromorphic form that corresponds to many human god-pictures, and living humans are already active, living beings, not requiring the sort of detailed rituals of animation and other practices used to mark cult statues as god-representatives on earth. Moreover, this idea of humans as divinely-made god-images can be theologically evocative. Consider, for example, Abraham Heschel’s use of this theme to argue that every human being is a theophany, and that acts of racism and violence thus constitute acts of blasphemy against the images that God godself has created.133

      Ecological issues and implicationsMeanwhile, within the present ecological crisis, authors such as Lynn White and Carl Améry have noted potential problems with P’s particular link of this “image of God” theme to human multiplication and the idea of human godlike rule over creation.134 These readings have some cogency, especially when Gen 1 is read on a surface level without attention to its broader literary functions. After all, parts of the picture of human destiny depicted in Gen 1 mirror contemporary problems of human overpopulation and domination of the earthly biome, and it is easy to misread the concluding “very good” in Gen 1:31 as being God’s ringing endorsement of human domination and multiplication run amok. Nevertheless, such a reading misses the fact that God’s statement that creation was “very good” follows God’s instructions for human and animal nourishment (1:29–30), instructions which underline God’s intention that the earthly biome that is presided over by godlike humans be a space free from all violence. Its ancient authors were well aware of the potential for conflict between humans and the animal world (e.g., in the choice of the verb רדה for human rule, 1:26, 28). Still, they developed Gen 1 as an ideal picture of God’s original intent for a totally harmonious ecosystem. This ideal picture retains enduring significance as a contrast to the contemporary reality of an earthly biome corrupted by violence (cf. Gen 6:12). Later texts in P recognize divine concessions to this violent world (e.g., Gen 9:2–6; Lev 17). Still, P begins its account with how God really wanted the earth to be. Genesis 1 is the statement of that ideal.

      Genesis 1, read in this broader context of P, stands as a useful contrast to romantic notions that humans should see themselves as equal partners to other members of our ecosystem. As long as humans continue to use technology and live in community, a reality already symbolized by the implicit presupposition of seed-farming in Gen 1:29–30, there is no going back to a time when humans are non-dominant participants in the ecosystem. The choice, rather, is what sort of dominant role humans end up playing. To pretend that any human can act as just another member of the ecosystem is much like someone raised in and accustomed to privilege (gender, wealth, class, race, etc.) joining a group of people less privileged and presuming that they are exactly similar political actors. Once power is gained, even its renunciation is an unavoidable exercise of power, and the renounced power is easily reclaimed.

      Written millenia ago, Gen 1 provides a remarkably prescient picture of humans as bearing the responsibility that comes with unequal power over the earthly biome. Moreover, Gen 1 articulates God’s intention that such power be exercised peaceably. Nevertheless, it is important to note that, aside from this implication of a peaceful ideal in Gen 1:29–30, the concept of rule in Gen 1 itself lacks a specification of ethical requirements for legitimate human rule over and relating to animals and the rest of the human biome. In particular, there seems a conflict between the ideal of peace with the animal world in 1:29–30 and the blessing enabling humans to multiply very much in Gen 1:28 (also 9:1, 7). The problems with this blessing in Gen 1:28 are, to be sure, related to the original context of this text. The authors of Gen 1 (and 9) lived in a world that had far fewer people than today, and these authors were concerned about the threats of wild animals to human life rather than any threat of human overpopulation.135 Yet however much one may gain insight into the ancient background of the Priestly depiction human rule and multiplication, it also is important to recognize potentially damaging ways that this depiction can be reread within the present context of environmental crisis.

      Postmodern approachesThese considerations lead to some ways that a careful historical reading of Gen 1 can be related to a variety of postmodern, resistant readings of the text. Though some early feminist readings of Gen 1 found in it a theologically evocative depiction of females bearing the divine image alongside males, some more recent feminist approaches (e.g., Claasens) have analyzed and critiqued the way Gen 1 celebrates the organization of the cosmos into a series of binary dualisms.136 Recent posthumanist approaches have particularly questioned the human-animal dichotomy developed in Gen 1, even as they have noted ways that parts of Gen 1 celebrate the intrinsic worth of non-human beings and depict God’s concern for them.137 So also, Deryn Guest’s transgender interpretation of Gen 1 argues against interpretive collusion with the text’s unquestioned celebration of gender and other forms of order, advocating instead a resistant reading of Gen 1 that highlights and finds the divine in elements like the primeval ocean (תהום).138 In each case, these resistant postmodern readings draw on and benefit from historical analysis of elements in Gen 1, even as they critique any claim by such a reading to provide a definitive account of the meaning and significance of the text.

      Universal aspects of the SabbathFinally, this exegesis should not overlook the implicit emphasis across Gen 1:1–2:3 on anticipating the Sabbath. Christian ambivalence toward the Sabbath has contributed to a tendency among non-Jewish interpreters to read the Bible’s first creation account if it ended with the creation of humans. Indeed, this tendency was enshrined in the chapter-structure of Genesis when thirteenth-century Christian theologians introduced the present chapter division, placing the first six days of creation into chapter one (Gen 1:1–31) while relegating God’s blessing and sanctification of the seventh day to the outset of chapter two (Gen 2:1–3).139 This chapter division obscured the way Gen 1:1–2:3 as a whole emphasizes the idea that a seven-day, Sabbath-oriented time system is built into the very structure of creation (see also Exod 16:4–5, 22–30). Moreover, even though subsequent biblical texts treat this creation-founded Sabbath as a practice exclusive to Israel (e.g., Gen 20:8–11; 31:12–17), the Gen 1 description of all humans as God’s

Скачать книгу