The term "minority group" has different usages, depending on
the context. According to its common usage, the term minority group can
simply be understood in terms of demographic sizes within a population:
i.e. a group in society with the least number of individuals, or less
than half, is a "minority". Usually a minority group is disempowered
relative to the majority, and that characteristic lends itself to different applications of the term minority.
In terms of sociology, economics, and politics, a demographic
that takes up the smallest fraction of the population is not necessarily
labelled the "minority" if it wields dominant power. In the academic
context, the terms "minority" and "majority" are used in terms of
hierarchical power structures. For example, in South Africa, during Apartheid,
white Europeans held virtually all social, economic, and political
power over black Africans. For this reason, black Africans are the
"minority group", despite the fact that they outnumber white Europeans
in South Africa. This is why academics more frequently use the term
"minority group" to refer to a category of people who experience relative disadvantage, as compared to members of a dominant social group. To address this ambiguity, Harris Mylonas
has proposed the term "non-core group", instead of "minority group", to
refer to any aggregation of individuals that is perceived as an
unassimilated ethnic group (on a linguistic, religious, physical, or
ideological basis) by the ruling political elite of a country" and reserves the term 'minority' only for groups that have been granted minority rights by their state of residence.
Minority group membership is typically based on differences in observable characteristics or practices, such as: ethnicity (ethnic minority), race (racial minority), religion (religious minority), sexual orientation (sexual minority), or disability. The framework of intersectionality
can be used to recognize that an individual may simultaneously hold
membership in multiple minority groups (e.g. both a racial and religious
minority).
Likewise, individuals may also be part of a minority group in regard to
some characteristics, but part of a dominant group in regard to others.
The term "minority group" often occurs within the discourse of civil rights and collective rights, as members of minority groups are prone to differential treatment in the countries and societies in which they live. Minority group members often face discrimination in multiple areas of social life, including housing, employment, healthcare, and education, among others. While discrimination may be committed by individuals, it may also occur through structural inequalities, in which rights and opportunities are not equally accessible to all. Those in favour of minority rights
often pursue laws designed to protect minority groups from
discrimination and afford members of the minority group equal social
status and legal protections as held by members of the dominant group.
Definitions
Prior to the Paris Peace Conference (1919–1920),
the term "minority" primarily referred to political parties in national
legislatures, not ethnic, national, linguistic or religious groups.
Such minority parties were powerless relative to the majority (or
plurality) political group. The Paris Conference has been attributed with coining the concept of minority rights and bringing prominence to it.
The League of Nations Minorities Commission defined minority in 1919 as
"nationals belonging to racial, religious, or linguistic minorities". Protection of minority groups, such as through careful drawing of boundaries of states and proportional representation, was seen as integral in preventing causes of future wars.
Sociological
Louis Wirth
defined a minority group as "a group of people who, because of their
physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from the others in
the society
in which they live for differential and unequal treatment, and who
therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination". The definition includes both objective and subjective criteria: membership of a minority group is objectively ascribed
by society, based on an individual's physical or behavioral
characteristics; it is also subjectively applied by its members, who may
use their status as the basis of group identity or solidarity.
Thus, minority group status is categorical: an individual who exhibits
the physical or behavioral characteristics of a given minority group is
accorded the status of that group and is subject to the same treatment
as other members of that group.
Joe Feagin,
states that a minority group has five characteristics: (1) suffering
discrimination and subordination, (2) physical and/or cultural traits
that set them apart, and which are disapproved by the dominant group,
(3) a shared sense of collective identity and common burdens, (4)
socially shared rules about who belongs and who does not determine
minority status, and (5) tendency to marry within the group.
Criticisms
There is a controversy with the use of the word minority, as it has a generic and an academic usage.
Common usage of the term indicates a statistical minority; however,
academics refer to power differences among groups rather than
differences in population size among groups.
The above criticism is based on the idea that a group can be
considered a minority even if it includes such a large number of people
that it is numerically not a minority in society.
Some sociologists have criticized the concept of
"minority/majority", arguing this language excludes or neglects changing
or unstable cultural identities, as well as cultural affiliations
across national boundaries.
As such, the term historically excluded groups (HEGs) is often
similarly used to highlight the role of historical oppression and
domination, and how this results in the under-representation of
particular groups in various areas of social life.
Political
The term national minority is often used to discuss minority groups in international and national politics. All countries contain some degree of racial, ethnic, or linguistic diversity. In addition, minorities may also be immigrant, indigenous or landless nomadic communities.
This often results in variations in language, culture, beliefs,
practices, that set some groups apart from the dominant group. As these
differences are usually perceived negatively, this results in loss of
social and political power for members of minority groups.
Sometimes, racist policies explicitly codified pseudo-scientific definitions of race: such as the United States' one-drop rule and blood quantum laws, South Africa's apartheid, and Nazi Germany Nuremberg race laws. Other times, race has been a matter of self-identification, with de facto racist policies implemented. In addition to governmental policy, racism may persist as social prejudice and discrimination.
There are also social groups that are usually identified through ethnicity. Like race, ethnicity is largely determined hereditarily. However, it can also be influenced by factors such as adoption, cultural assimilation, religious conversion, and language shift. As race and ethnicity often overlap,
many ethnic minorities are also racial minorities. However, this is not
always the case, and some people are ethnic minorities while also being
classified as white, such as some Jews, Roma, and Sámi. In some cases, their ethnic identities have been seen as negating their whiteness, in both inter- and intra-group identification.
In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, there is a preference to categorise people by ethnicity instead of race.
Ethnicity encompasses a mix of "long shared cultural experiences,
religious practices, traditions, ancestry, language, dialect or national
origins". The United Kingdom considers everyone but white British people to be an ethnic minority, including other white Europeans such as White Irish people (excluding in Northern Ireland).
National minorities
A
national minority is a social group within a state that differs from
the majority and/or dominant population in terms of ethnicity, language,
culture, or religion, but also it also tends to have a close link with a
specific territory from which the minority social group originates.
Involuntary minorities
Also
known as "castelike minorities", involuntary minorities are a term for
people who were originally brought into any society against their will.
In the United States, for instance, it includes but is not limited to
Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, African Americans, and in the 1800s, native-born Hispanics.
Voluntary minorities
Immigrants
take on minority status in their new country, usually in hopes of a
better future economically, educationally, and politically than in their
homeland. Because of their focus on success, voluntary minorities are
more likely to do better in school than other migrating minorities.
Adapting to a very different culture and language makes difficulties in
the early stages of life in the new country. Voluntary immigrants do
not experience a sense of divided identity as much as involuntary
minorities and are often rich in social capital because of their
educational ambitions.
Major immigrant groups in the United States include Mexicans, Central
and South Americans, Cubans, Africans, East Asians, and South Asians.
The term sexual minority is frequently used by public health
researchers to recognize a wide variety of individuals who engage in
same-sex sexual behavior, including those who do not identify under the
LGBTQ+ umbrella. For example, men who have sex with men (MSM), but do
not identify as gay. In addition, the term gender minorities can include
many types of gender variant people, such as intersex people, transgender people,
or non-binary individuals. However, the terms sexual and gender
minority are often not preferred by LGBTQ+ people, as they represent
clinical categories rather than individual identity.
Though lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer
(LGBTQ+) people have existed throughout human history, they represent a
numerical and social minority. They experience numerous social inequalities
stemming from their group membership as LGBTQ+ people. LGBTQ+ rights
movements across many western countries led to the recognition of LGBTQ+
people as members of a minority group. These inequalities include social discrimination and isolation, unequal access to healthcare, employment, and housing, and experience negative mental and physical health outcomes due to these experiences.
Disabled people
Leading up to the Human Rights Act 1998
in the UK, a rise in the awareness relating to how disabled people were
being treated began. Many started to believe that they were being
denied basic human rights. This act had a section that stated if
authorities did not protect people with learning disabilities from
others' actions, such as harm or neglect, then they could be prosecuted.
The disability rights movement
has contributed to an understanding of disabled people as a minority or
a coalition of minorities who are disadvantaged by society, not just as
people who are disadvantaged by their impairments. Advocates of
disability rights emphasize the difference in physical or psychological
functioning rather than inferiority. For example, some autistic people argue for acceptance of neurodiversity, much as opponents of racism argue for acceptance of ethnic diversity. The deaf community is often regarded as a linguistic and cultural minority rather than a group with disabilities, and some deaf
people do not see themselves as having a disability at all. Rather,
they are disadvantaged by technologies and social institutions designed
to cater to the dominant group. (See the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.)
People belonging to religious minorities have a faith that is
different from that held by the majority. Most countries of the world
have religious minorities. It is now widely accepted in the West that people should have the freedom to choose their religion, including the right to convert from one religion to another, or not to have any religion (atheism and/or agnosticism). However, in many countries, this freedom is constricted. In Egypt, a new system of identity cards requires all citizens to state their religion—and the only choices are Islam, Christianity, or Judaism (See Egyptian identification card controversy).
Women as a disadvantaged group
In most societies, numbers of men and women are roughly equal. Though women are not considered to be a minority, the status of women, as a subordinate group, has led to many social scientists to refer to them as a disadvantaged group.
Though women's legal rights and status vary widely across countries,
women often experience social inequalities, relative to men, in various
societies.
Women are sometimes denied access to education and access to the same
opportunities as men, especially in under-developed countries.
Law and government
In the politics of some countries, a "minority" is an ethnic group recognized by law, and having specified rights. Speakers of a legally recognized minority language,
for instance, might have the right to education or communication with
the government in their mother tongue. Countries with special provisions for minorities include Canada, China, Ethiopia, Germany, India, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russia, Croatia, and the United Kingdom.
The various minority groups in a country are often not given
equal treatment. Some groups are too small or indistinct to obtain
minority protections. For example, a member of a particularly small
ethnic group might be forced to check "Other" on a checklist of
different backgrounds and so might receive fewer privileges than a
member of a more defined group.
Many contemporary governments prefer to assume the people they
rule all belong to the same nationality rather than separate ones based
on ethnicity. The United States asks for race and ethnicity
on its official census forms, which thus breaks up and organizes its
population into sub-groups, primarily racial rather than national. Spain
does not divide its nationals by ethnic group or national minorities,
although it does maintain an official notion of minority languages, that
is one of the criteria for to determine a national minority, upon the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
Some especially significant or powerful minorities receive
comprehensive protection and political representation. For example, the
former Yugoslav Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina recognizes the three constitutive nations, none of which constitutes a numerical majority (see nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina). However, other minorities such as Roma and Jews,
are officially labelled "foreign" and are excluded from many of these
protections. For example, they may be excluded from political positions,
including the presidency.
There is debate over recognizing minority groups and their privileges. One view
is that the application of special rights to minority groups may harm
some countries, such as new states in Africa or Latin America not
founded on the European nation-state
model, since minority recognition may interfere with establishing a
national identity. It may hamper the integration of the minority into
mainstream society, perhaps leading to separatism or supremacism. In Canada, some feel that the failure of the dominant English-speaking majority to integrate French Canadians has provoked Quebec separatism.
Others assert that minorities require specific protections to ensure that they are not marginalized: for example, bilingual education
may be needed to allow linguistic minorities to fully integrate into
the school system and compete equally in society. In this view, rights
for minorities strengthen the nation-building project, as members of
minorities see their interests well served, and willingly accept the
legitimacy of the nation and their integration (not assimilation) within
it.
The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth of both Judaism and Christianity, told in the Book of Genesis ch. 1–2. While the Jewish and Christian tradition is that the account is one comprehensive story, modern scholars of biblical criticism identify the account as a composite work made up of two stories drawn from different sources.
The first account, in Genesis 1:1–2:3, is from what scholars call the Priestly source (P), largely dated to the 6th century BCE. In this story, Elohim (the Hebrew generic word for "god") creates the heavens and the Earth in six days, then rests on, blesses, and sanctifies the seventh (i.e. the Biblical Sabbath). The second account, which takes up the rest of Genesis 2, is largely from the Jahwist source (J),commonly dated to the 10th or 9th centuries BCE. In this story, God (now referred to by the personal name Yahweh) creates Adam, the first man, from dust and places him in the Garden of Eden. There he is given dominion over the animals. Eve, the first woman, is created from Adam's rib as his companion.
The first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch is thought to have been composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE (the Jahwist source) and was later expanded by other authors (the Priestly source) into a work much alike to Genesis as known today. The authors of the text were influenced by Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology, and borrowed several themes from them, adapting and integrating them with their unique belief in one God. The combined narrative is a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation: Genesis affirms monotheism and denies polytheism.
Scholarly writings frequently refer to Genesis as myth, a genre of folklore consisting primarily of narratives
that play a fundamental role in a society. For scholars, this is in
contrast to more vernacular usage of the term "myth" that refers to a
belief that is not true. Instead, the veracity of a myth is not a
defining criterion.
Although Orthodox Jews and "fundamentalist Christians" attribute the authorship of Book of Genesis to Moses
"as a matter of faith," the Mosaic authorship has been questioned since
the 11th century, and has been rejected in scholarship since the 17th
century. Scholars of biblical criticism conclude that it, together with the following four books (making up what Jews call the Torah and biblical scholars call the Pentateuch), is "a composite work, the product of many hands and periods."
The creation narrative consists of two separate accounts, drawn from different sources. The first account, in Genesis 1:1–2:3, is from what scholars call the Priestly source (P), largely dated to the 6th century BCE. The second account, which is older and takes up the rest of Genesis 2, is largely from the Jahwist source (J), commonly dated to the 10th or 9th centuries BCE.
The two stories were combined, but there is currently no scholarly consensus on when the narrative reached its final form.
A common hypothesis among biblical scholars today is that the first
major comprehensive narrative of the Pentateuch was composed in the 7th
or 6th centuries BCE. A sizeable minority of scholars believe that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, also known as the primeval history, can be dated to the 3rd century BCE, based on discontinuities between the contents of the work and other parts of the Hebrew Bible.
The "Persian imperial authorisation," which has gained considerable interest, although still controversial, proposes that the Persians, after their conquest of Babylon
in 538 BCE, agreed to grant Jerusalem a large measure of local autonomy
within the empire, but required the local authorities to produce a
single law code
accepted by the entire community. According to this theory, there were
two powerful groups in the community, the priestly families who
controlled the Temple, and the landowning families who made up the
"elders," which were in conflict over many issues. Each had its own
"history of origins," but the Persian promise of greatly increased local
autonomy for all provided a powerful incentive to cooperate in
producing a single text.
Two stories
The creation narrative is made up of two stories, roughly equivalent to the two first chapters of the Book of Genesis (there are no chapter divisions in the original Hebrew text; see "chapters and verses of the Bible").
In the first story, the Creator deity is referred to as "Elohim" (the Hebrew generic word for "god"), whereas in the second story, he is referred to with a composite divine name; "LORD
God". Traditional or evangelical scholars such as Collins explain this
as a single author's variation in style in order to, for example,
emphasize the unity and transcendence of "God" in the first narrative,
who created the heavens and the earth by himself. Critical scholars such as Richard Elliot Friedman,
on the contrary, take this as evidence of multiple authorship. Friedman
states that the Jahwist source originally only used the "LORD"
(Yahweh) title, but a later editor added "God" to form the composite
name: "It therefore appears to be an effort by the Redactor (R) to
soften the transition from the P creation, which uses only 'God'
(thirty-five times), to the coming J stories, which use only the name
YHWH."
The first account (Genesis 1:1–2:3)
employs a repetitious structure of divine fiat and fulfillment, then
the statement "And there was evening and there was morning, the [nth] day," for each of the six days of creation. In each of the first three days there is an act of division: day one divides the darkness from light,
day two the "waters above" from the "waters below", and day three the
sea from the land. In each of the next three days these divisions are
populated: day four populates the darkness and light with Sun, Moon and
stars; day five populates seas and skies with fish and fowl; and finally
land-based creatures and mankind populate the land.
In the second story Yahweh creates Adam, the first man, from dust and places him in the Garden of Eden. There he is given dominion over the animals. Eve, the first woman, is created from Adam's rib as his companion.
The primary accounts in each chapter are joined by a literary bridge at Genesis 2:4,
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they
were created." This echoes the first line of Genesis 1, "In the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth", and is reversed in the
next phrase, "...in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens". This verse is one of ten "generations" (Hebrew: תולדותtoledot) phrases used throughout Genesis, which provide a literary structure to the book.
They normally function as headings to what comes after, but the
position of this, the first of the series, has been the subject of much
debate.
The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are usually regarded as contradictory but also complementary, with the first (the Priestly story) concerned with the creation of the entire cosmos while the second (the Jahwist story) focuses on man as moral agent and cultivator of his environment.
Mesopotamian influence
Marduk, god of Babylon, destroying Tiamat, the dragon of primeval chaos
Genesis 1 bears striking similarities and differences with Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation myth. The myth begins with two primeval entities: Apsu, the male freshwater deity, and Tiamat,
the female saltwater deity. The first gods were born from their sexual
union. Both Apsu and Tiamat were killed by the younger gods. Marduk, the leader of the gods, builds the world with Tiamat's body, which he splits in two. With one half, he builds a dome-shaped firmament
in the sky to hold back Tiamat's upper waters. With the other half,
Marduk forms dry land to hold back her lower waters. Marduk then
organises the heavenly bodies and assigns tasks to the gods in
maintaining the cosmos. When the gods complain about their work, Marduk
creates humans out of the blood of the god Kingu. The grateful gods build a temple for Marduk in Babylon. This is similar to the Baal Cycle, in which the Canaanite god Baal builds himself a cosmic temple over seven days.
In both Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish, creation consists of bringing order out of chaos. Before creation, there was nothing but a cosmic ocean. During creation, a dome-shaped firmament is put in place to hold back the water and make Earth habitable.
Both conclude with the creation of a human called "man" and the
building of a temple for the god (in Genesis 1, this temple is the
entire cosmos). In contrast to Enuma Elish, Genesis 1 is monotheistic. There is no theogony (account of God's origins), and there is no trace of the resistance to the reduction of chaos to order (Greek: theomachy, lit. "God-fighting"), all of which mark the Mesopotamian creation accounts. The gods in Enuma Elish are amoral, they have limited powers, and they create humans to be their slaves. In Genesis 1, however, God is all powerful. He creates humans in the divine image, and cares for their wellbeing, and gives them dominion over every living thing.
Enuma Elish has also left traces on Genesis 2. Both begin
with a series of statements of what did not exist at the moment when
creation began; Enuma Elish has a spring (in the sea) as the
point where creation begins, paralleling the spring (on the land –
Genesis 2 is notable for being a "dry" creation story) in Genesis 2:6
that "watered the whole face of the ground"; in both myths, Yahweh/the
gods first create a man to serve him/them, then animals and vegetation.
At the same time, and as with Genesis 1, the Jewish version has
drastically changed its Babylonian model: Eve, for example, seems to
fill the role of a mother goddess when, in Genesis 4:1, she says that she has "created a man with Yahweh", but she is not a divine being like her Babylonian counterpart.
Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11, from the Creation to the Flood
and its aftermath. The two share numerous plot-details (e.g. the divine
garden and the role of the first man in the garden, the creation of the
man from a mixture of earth and divine substance, the chance of immortality, etc.), and have a similar overall theme: the gradual clarification of man's relationship with God(s) and animals.
Cosmology
Genesis 1–2 reflects ancient ideas about science: in the words of E.A. Speiser, "on the subject of creation biblical tradition aligned itself with the traditional tenets of Babylonian science."
The opening words of Genesis 1, "In the beginning God created the
heavens and the earth", sum up the belief of the author(s) that Yahweh, the god of Israel, was solely responsible for creation and had no rivals. Later Jewish thinkers, adopting ideas from Greek philosophy, concluded that God's Wisdom, Word and Spirit penetrated all things and gave them unity. Christianity in turn adopted these ideas and identified Jesus with the creative word: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1).
When the Jews came into contact with Greek thought, there followed a
major reinterpretation of the underlying cosmology of the Genesis
narrative. The biblical authors conceived the cosmos as a flat
disc-shaped Earth in the centre, an underworld for the dead below, and
heaven above.
Below the Earth were the "waters of chaos", the cosmic sea, home to
mythic monsters defeated and slain by God; in Exodus 20:4, God warns
against making an image "of anything that is in the waters under the
earth". There were also waters above the Earth, and so the raqia (firmament), a solid bowl, was necessary to keep them from flooding the world. During the Hellenistic period,
this was largely replaced by a more "scientific" model as imagined by
Greek philosophers, according to which the Earth was a sphere at the
centre of concentric shells of celestial spheres containing the Sun,
Moon, stars and planets.
The idea that God created the world out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo) has become central today to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism – indeed, the medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides felt it was the only concept that the three religions shared – yet it is not found directly in Genesis, nor in the entire Hebrew Bible.
According to Walton, the Priestly authors of Genesis 1 were concerned
not with the origins of matter (the material which God formed into the
habitable cosmos), but with assigning roles so that the Cosmos should
function. John Day, however, considers that Genesis 1 clearly provides an account of the creation of the material universe.
Even so, the doctrine had not yet been fully developed in the early 2nd
century AD, although early Christian scholars were beginning to see a
tension between the idea of world-formation and the omnipotence of God;
by the beginning of the 3rd century this tension was resolved,
world-formation was overcome, and creation ex nihilo had become a fundamental tenet of Christian theology.
Alternative biblical creation accounts
The Genesis narratives are not the only biblical creation accounts.
The Bible preserves two contrasting models of creation. The first is the
"logos" (speech) model, where a supreme God "speaks" dormant matter into existence. Genesis 1 is an example of creation by speech.
The second is the "agon"
(struggle or combat) model, in which it is God's victory in battle over
the monsters of the sea that mark his sovereignty and might. There is no complete combat myth preserved in the Bible. However, there are fragmentary allusions to such a myth in Isaiah 27:1, Isaiah 51:9–10, Job 26:12–13. These passages describe how God defeated the forces of chaos. These forces are personified as sea monsters. These monsters are variously named Yam (Sea), Nahar (River), Leviathan (Coiled One), Rahab (Arrogant One), and Tannin (Dragon).
Psalm 74 and Isaiah 51 recall a Canaanite myth
in which God creates the world by vanquishing the water deities:
"Awake, awake! ... It was you that hacked Rahab in pieces, that pierced
the Dragon! It was you that dried up the Sea, the waters of the great
Deep, that made the abysses of the Sea a road that the redeemed might
walk..."
The first creation account is divided into seven days during which
God creates light (day 1); the sky (day 2); the earth, seas, and
vegetation (day 3); the sun and moon (day 4); animals of the air and sea
(day 5); and land animals and humans (day 6). God rested from his work
on the seventh day of creation, the Sabbath.
The use of numbers in ancient texts was often numerological rather than factual – that is, the numbers were used because they held some symbolic value to the author.
The number seven, denoting divine completion, permeates Genesis 1:
verse 1:1 consists of seven words, verse 1:2 has fourteen, and 2:1–3 has
35 words (5×7); Elohim is mentioned 35 times, "heaven/firmament" and
"earth" 21 times each, and the phrases "and it was so" and "God saw that
it was good" occur 7 times each.
The cosmos created in Genesis 1 bears a striking resemblance to the Tabernacle in Exodus 35–40, which was the prototype of the Temple in Jerusalem and the focus of priestly worship of Yahweh;
for this reason, and because other Middle Eastern creation stories also
climax with the construction of a temple/house for the creator god,
Genesis 1 can be interpreted as a description of the construction of
the cosmos as God's house, for which the Temple in Jerusalem served as
the earthly representative.
Pre-creation (Genesis 1:1–2)
1 In the beginning God [Elohim] created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit [ruach] of God moved upon the face of the waters.
The opening phrase of Genesis 1:1 is traditionally translated in English as "in the beginning God created". This translation suggests creatio ex nihilo ('creation from nothing'). The Hebrew, however, is ambiguous and can be translated in other ways. The NRSV translates verses 1 and 2 as, "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void..." This translation suggests that earth, in some way, already existed when God began his creative activity.
Biblical scholars John Day and David Toshio Tsumura
argue that Genesis 1:1 describes the initial creation of the universe,
the former writing: "Since the inchoate earth and the heavens in the
sense of the air/wind were already in existence in Gen. 1:2, it is most
natural to assume that Gen. 1:1 refers to God's creative act in making
them." Other scholars such as R. N. Whybray, Christine Hayes, Michael Coogan, Cynthia Chapman, and John H. Walton argue that Genesis 1:1 describes the creation of an ordered universe out of preexisting, chaotic material.
The word "created" translates the Hebrew bara', a word used only for God's creative activity; people do not engage in bara'. Walton argues that bara' does not necessarily refer to the creation of matter. In the ancient Near East, "to create" meant assigning roles and functions. The bara' which God performs in Genesis 1 concerns bringing "heaven and earth" from chaos into ordered existence.
Day disputes Walton's functional interpretation of the creation
narrative. Day argues that material creation is the "only natural way of
taking the text" and that this interpretation was the only one for most
of history.
Most interpreters consider the phrase "heaven and earth" to be a merism meaning the entire cosmos. Genesis 1:2 describes the earth as "formless and void". This phrase is a translation of the Hebrew tohu wa-bohu (תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ). Tohu by itself means "emptiness, futility". It is used to describe the desert wilderness. Bohu has no known meaning, although it appears to be related to the Arabic word bahiya ("to be empty"), and was apparently coined to rhyme with and reinforce tohu. The phrase appears also in Jeremiah 4:23 where the prophet warns Israel that rebellion against God will lead to the return of darkness and chaos, "as if the earth had been 'uncreated'".
Verse 2 continues, "darkness was upon the face of the deep". The word deep translates the Hebrew təhôm (תְהוֹם), a primordial ocean. Darkness and təhôm are two further elements of chaos in addition to tohu wa-bohu. In Enuma Elish, the watery deep is personified as the goddess Tiamat, the enemy of Marduk.
In Genesis, however, there is no such personification. The elements of
chaos are not seen as evil but as indications that God has not begun his
creative work.
Verse 2 concludes with, "And the ruach of God [Elohim] moved upon the face of the waters." There are several options for translating the Hebrew word ruach (רוּחַ). It could mean "breath", "wind", or "spirit" in different contexts. The traditional translation is "spirit of God".
In the Hebrew Bible, the spirit of God is understood to be an extension
of God's power. The term is analogous to saying the "hand of the Lord" (2 Kings 3:15). Historically, Christian theologians supported "spirit" as it provided biblical support for the presence of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, at creation.
Other interpreters argue for translating ruach as "wind". For example, the NRSV renders it "wind from God". Likewise, the word elohim can sometimes function as a superlative adjective (such as "mighty" or "great"). The phrase ruach elohim may therefore mean "great wind". The connection between wind and watery chaos is also seen in the Genesis flood narrative, where God uses wind to make the waters subside in Genesis 8:1.
In Enuma Elish, the storm god Marduk defeats Tiamat with
his wind. While stories of a cosmic battle prior to creation were
familiar to ancient Israelites (see above),
there is no such battle in Genesis 1 though the text includes the
primeval ocean and references to God's wind. Instead, Genesis 1 depicts a
single God whose power is uncontested and who brings order out of
chaos.
Creation takes place over six days. The creative acts are arranged so
that the first three days set up the environments necessary for the
creations of the last three days to thrive. For example, God creates
light on the first day and the light-producing heavenly bodies on the
fourth day.
Days of Creation
Day 1
light
Day 4
celestial bodies
Day 2
sea and firmament
Day 5
birds and fish
Day 3
land and plants
Day 6
land animals and humans
Each day follows a similar literary pattern:
Introduction: "And God said"
Command: "Let there be"
Report: "And it was so"
Evaluation: "And God saw that it was good"
Time sequence: "And there was evening, and there was morning"
Verse 31 sums up all of creation with, "God saw every thing that He
had made, and, indeed, it was very good". According to biblical scholar R. N. Whybray, "This is the craftsman's assessment of his own work...
It does not necessarily have an ethical connotation: it is not mankind
that is said to be 'good', but God's work as craftsman."
At the end of the sixth day, when creation is complete, the world
is a cosmic temple in which the role of humanity is the worship of God.
This parallels Enuma Elish and also echoes Job 38, where God recalls how the stars, the "sons of God", sang when the corner-stone of creation was laid.
First day (1:3–5)
3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw
the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the
darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called
Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
The process of creation illustrates God's sovereignty and omnipotence. God creates by fiat; things come into existence by divine decree. Like a king, God has merely to speak for things to happen. On day one, God creates light and separates the light from the darkness. Then he names them. God therefore creates time.
Creation by speech is not found in Mesopotamian mythology, but it is present in some ancient Egyptian creation myths. While some Egyptian accounts have a god creating the world by sneezing or masturbating, the Memphite Theology has Ptah create by speech.
In Genesis, creative acts begin with speech and are finalized with
naming. This has parallels in other ancient Near Eastern cultures. In
the Memphite Theology, the creator god names everything. Similarly, Enuma Elish
begins when heaven, earth, and the gods were unnamed. Walton writes,
"In this way of thinking, things did not exist unless they were named." According to biblical scholar Nahum Sarna, this similarity is "wholly superficial" because in other ancient narratives creation by speech involves magic:
The pronouncement of the right
word, like the performance of the right magical actions, is able to, or
rather, inevitably must, actualize the potentialities which are inherent
in the inert matter. In other words, it implies a mystic bond uniting
matter to its manipulator... Worlds apart
is the Genesis concept of creation by divine fiat. Notice how the Bible
passes over in absolute silence the nature of the matter—if any—upon
which the divine word acted creatively. Its presence or absence is of no
importance, for there is no tie between it and God. "Let there be!" or,
as the Psalmist echoed it, "He spoke and it was so," [Psalm 33:9]
refers not to the utterance of the magic word, but to the expression of
the omnipotent, sovereign, unchallengeable will of the absolute,
transcendent God to whom all nature is completely subservient.
Second day (1:6–8)
Ancient
Israelites and other Near Eastern people understood the world to be
surrounded by water. The upper waters are contained by a solid dome or
firmament (the sky). The dome was supported by mountains.
6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,
and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the
firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from
the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God
called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was
morning, a second day.
On day two, God creates the firmament (rāqîa), which is named šamayim ('sky' or 'heaven'),
to divide the waters. Water was a "primal generative force" in pagan
mythologies. In Genesis, however, the primeval ocean possesses no powers
and is completely at God's command.
Rāqîa is derived from rāqa', the verb used for the act of beating metal into thin plates.
Ancient people throughout the world believed the sky was solid, and the
firmament in Genesis 1 was understood to be a solid dome. In ancient near eastern cosmology, the earth is a flat disc
surrounded by the waters above and the waters below. The firmament is a
solid dome that rests on mountains at the edges of the earth. It is
transparent, allowing men to see the blue of the waters above with
"windows" to allow rain to fall. The sun, moon and stars are underneath
the firmament. Deep within the earth is the underworld or Sheol. The earth is supported by pillars sunk into the waters below.
The waters above are the source of precipitation, so the function of the rāqîa was to control or regulate the weather. In the Genesis flood narrative, "all the fountains of the great deep burst forth" from the waters beneath the earth and from the "windows" of the sky.
Third day (1:9–13)
And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto
one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God
called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters
called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said: 'Let the
earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit
after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was
so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its
kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its
kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there
was morning, a third day.
By the end of the third day God has created a foundational environment of light, heavens, seas and earth.
God does not create or make trees and plants, but instead commands the
earth to produce them. The underlying theological meaning seems to be
that God has given the previously barren earth the ability to produce
vegetation, and it now does so at his command. "According to (one's)
kind" appears to look forward to the laws found later in the Pentateuch,
which lay great stress on holiness through separation.
In the first three days, God set up time, climate, and
vegetation, all necessary for the proper functioning of the cosmos. For
ancient peoples living in an agrarian society,
climatic or agricultural disasters could cause widespread suffering
through famine. Nevertheless, Genesis 1 describes God's original
creation as "good"—the natural world was not originally a threat to
human survival.
The three levels of the cosmos are next populated in the same order in which they were created—heavens, sea, earth.
14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for
seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the
firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16
And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day,
and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set
them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and
to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from
the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and
there was morning, a fourth day.
On the first day, God makes light (Hebrew:'ôr). On the fourth day, God makes "lights" or "lamps" (Hebrew:mā'ôr) set in the firmament. This is the same word used elsewhere in the Pentateuch for the lampstand or menorah in the Tabernacle, another reference to the cosmos being a temple. Specifically, God creates the "greater light", the "lesser light", and the stars. According to Victor Hamilton,
most scholars agree that the choice of "greater light" and "lesser
light", rather than the more explicit "sun" and "moon", is
anti-mythological rhetoric intended to contradict widespread
contemporary beliefs in sun and moon deities. Indeed, Rashi
posits that the account of the fourth day reveals that the sun and the
moon operate only according to the will of God, and so demonstrates that
it is foolish to worship them.
On day four, the language of "ruling" is introduced. The heavenly
bodies will "govern" day and night and mark seasons, years and days.
This was a matter of crucial importance to the Priestly authors, as the three pilgrimage festivals were organised around the cycles of both the sun and moon in a lunisolar calendar that could have either 12 or 13 months.
In Genesis 1:17, the stars are set in the firmament. In
Babylonian myth, the heavens were made of various precious stones with
the stars engraved in their surface (compare Exodus 24:10 where the
elders of Israel see God on the sapphire floor of heaven).
Fifth day (1:20–23)
And God said: 'Let the waters swarm
with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in
the open firmament of heaven.' 21 And God created the great
sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the
waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind;
and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying: 'Be
fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl
multiply in the earth.' 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a
fifth day.
On day five, God creates animals of the sea and air. In Genesis 1:20, the Hebrew term nepeš ḥayya ('living creatures') is first used. They are of higher status than all that has been created before this, and they receive God's blessing.
The Hebrew word tannin (translated as "sea creatures" or "sea monsters") in Genesis 1:21 is used elsewhere in the Bible in reference to chaos-monsters named Rahab and Leviathan (Psalm 74:13, Isaiah 27:1 and 51:9). In Egyptian and Mesopotamian mythologies (Instruction of Merikare and Enuma Elish),
the creator-god has to do battle with the sea-monsters before he can
make heaven and earth. In Genesis, however, there is no hint of combat,
and the tannin are simply creatures created by God. The Genesis account, therefore, is an explicit polemic against the mythologies of the ancient world.
Sixth day (1:24–31)
The Creation of the Animals (1506–1511), by Grão Vasco
24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after
its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its
kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its
kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth
upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 27 And God created man in
His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female
created He them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and
over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 29 And God said:
'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the
face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree
yielding seed—to you it shall be for food; 30 and to every beast of the
earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth
upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, [I have given] every
green herb for food.' And it was so.31 And God saw every thing that He
had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there
was morning, the sixth day.
On day six, God creates land animals and humans. Like the animals of the sea and air, the land animals are designated nepeš ḥayya ('living creatures'). They are divided into three categories: domesticated animals (behema), whild herd animals that serve as prey (remeś), and wild predators (ḥayya). The earth "brings forth" animals in the same way that it brought forth vegetation on day three.
In Genesis 1:26, God says "Let us make man..." This has given rise to several theories, of which the two most important are that "us" is majestic plural, or that it reflects a setting in a divine council with God enthroned as king and proposing the creation of mankind to the lesser divine beings. A traditional interpretation is that "us" refers to a plurality of persons in the Godhead, which reflects Trinitarianism.
Some justify this by stating that the plural reveals a "duality within
the Godhead" that recalls the "Spirit of God" mentioned in verse 2; "And
the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters".
The creation of mankind is the climax of the creation account and
God's implied purpose for creating the world. Everything created up to
this point was made for humanity's use. Man was created in the "image of God". The meaning of this is unclear but suggestions include:
Having the spiritual qualities of God such as intellect, will, etc.;
Having the physical form of God;
A combination of these two;
Being God's counterpart on Earth and able to enter into a relationship with him;
When in Genesis 1:26 God says "Let us make man", the Hebrew word used is adam;
in this form it is a generic noun, "mankind", and does not imply that
this creation is male. After this first mention the word always appears
as ha-adam, "the man", but as Genesis 1:27 shows ("So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them."), the word is still not exclusively male.
God blesses humanity, commanding them to reproduce, "subdue" (kbš) the earth and "rule" (rdh) over it, in what is known as the cultural mandate.
Humanity is to extend the Kingdom of God beyond Eden, and, imitating
the Creator-God, is to labour to bring the earth into its service, to
the end of the fulfilment of the mandate.
This would include the procreation of offspring, the subjugation and
replenishment of the earth (e.g., the use of natural resources),
dominion over creatures (e.g., animal domestication), labor in general,
and marriage. God tells the animals and humans that he has given them "the green plants for food" – creation is to be vegetarian.
Only later, after the Flood, is man given permission to eat flesh. The
Priestly author of Genesis appears to look back to an ideal past in
which mankind lived at peace both with itself and with the animal
kingdom, and which could be re-achieved through a proper sacrificial
life in harmony with God.
Upon completion, God sees that "every thing that He had made ... was very good" (Genesis 1:31). According to Israel Knohl, this implies that the materials that existed before the Creation ("tohu wa-bohu," "darkness", "tehom") were not "very good". He thus hypothesized that the Priestly source set up this dichotomy to mitigate the problem of evil.
However according to Collins, since the creation of man is the climax
of the first creation account, "very good" must signify the presentation
of man as the crown of God's creation, which is to serve him.
And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2
And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made; and He
rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. 3 And God
blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it He rested
from all His work which God in creating had made.
These three verses belong with and complete the narrative in chapter 1. Creation is followed by "rest".
In ancient Near Eastern literature the divine rest is achieved in a
temple as a result of having brought order to chaos. Rest is both
disengagement, as the work of creation is finished, but also engagement,
as the deity is now present in his temple to maintain a secure and
ordered cosmos.
Compare with Exodus 20:8–20:11: "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it
holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; but the seventh
day is a sabbath unto the LORD thy GOD,
in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy
daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor
thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
Genesis 2–3, the Garden of Eden
story, was probably authored around 500 BCE as "a discourse on ideals
in life, the danger in human glory, and the fundamentally ambiguous
nature of humanity – especially human mental faculties".
The Garden in which the action takes place lies on the mythological
border between the human and the divine worlds, probably on the far side
of the cosmic ocean
near the rim of the world; following a conventional ancient Near
Eastern concept, the Eden river first forms that ocean and then divides
into four rivers which run from the four corners of the earth towards
its centre. According to Meredith Kline, who represents covenant theology and the framework interpretation,
the narrative establishes the site of the "climactic probation test",
which is also where the "covenant crisis" of Genesis 3 occurs.
The pericope that constitutes the second narrative is generally taken to begin at Genesis 2:4
("These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they
were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the
heavens,") because it is widely recognized as a chiasmus (in the following quote, each subject of the chiasmus is preceded by "[x]" to denote its place in the chiastic configuration; "These are the generations [a] of the heavens [b] and of the earth [c] when they were created [c'] in the day that the LORD God made [b'] the earth [a'] and the heavens").
The origin of humanity and plant life (2:4–7)
The content of the verse 4 opening is a set introduction similar to those found in Babylonian myths. Before the man is created, the earth is a barren waste watered by an ’êḏ (אד); Genesis 2:6 of the King James Version
has the translation "mist" for this word, following Jewish practice.
Since the mid-20th century, Hebraists have generally accepted that the
real meaning is "spring of underground water".
In Genesis 1 the characteristic word for God's activity is bara, "created"; in Genesis 2 the word used when he creates the man is yatsar (ייצר yîṣer), meaning "fashioned", a word used in contexts such as a potter fashioning a pot from clay. God breathes his own breath into the clay and it becomes nephesh (נֶ֫פֶשׁ), a word meaning "life", "vitality", "the living personality"; man shares nephesh with all creatures, but the text describes this life-giving act by God only in relation to man.
The word "Eden" comes from a root meaning "fertility": the first man is to work in God's miraculously fertile garden. The "tree of life" is a motif from Mesopotamian myth: in the Epic of Gilgamesh (c. 1800 BCE) the hero is given a plant whose name is "man becomes young in old age", but a serpent steals the plant from him.
Kline regards the tree of life as a symbol or seal of the reward of
eternal life for successful fulfilment of the covenant by humanity.
There has been much scholarly discussion about the type of knowledge
given by the second tree. Suggestions include: human qualities, sexual
consciousness, ethical knowledge, or universal knowledge; with the last
being the most widely accepted. In Eden, mankind has a choice between wisdom and life, and chooses the first, although God intended them for the second.
The mythic Eden and its rivers may represent the real Jerusalem, the Temple and the Promised Land. Eden may represent the divine garden on Zion, the mountain of God, which was also Jerusalem; while the real Gihon
was a spring outside the city (mirroring the spring which waters Eden);
and the imagery of the Garden, with its serpent and cherubs, has been
seen as a reflection of the real images of the Temple of Solomon with its copper serpent (the nehushtan) and guardian cherubs. Genesis 2 is the only place in the Bible where Eden appears as a geographic location: elsewhere (notably in the Book of Ezekiel)
it is a mythological place located on the holy Mountain of God, with
echoes of a Mesopotamian myth of the king as a primordial man placed in a
divine garden to guard the tree of life "in the midst of the garden"
(2:9).
God's covenant with Adam (2:15–17)
Kline states that the terms of the covenant (a divine legal transaction with divinely sanctioned commitments), specifically the Covenant of Works,
are summarised in verses 15-17. In verse 15, humanity is to "dress" and
"keep" the garden (KJV), or to "work it" and "take care of it" (NIV).
In verse 17, God gives the "focal probationary proscription", that Adam
must not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which
refers to "judicial discernment" (cf. 2 Samuel 14:17; 1 Kings 3:9, 28)
and a curse is attached if the proscription is transgressed, which is
said to be death, although Kline interprets this to be spiritual death
or eternal perdition rather than physical death. The Hebrew behind this is in the form used in the Bible for issuing death sentences. "Good and evil" can also be interpreted as a merism, so in this case it would mean simply "everything".
A suitable helper (2:18–25)
After God's observation that it is "not good that man should be alone" in Genesis 2:18,
but before he causes Adam to sleep, then creating Eve from his side in
verses 21–22, Adam's first recorded action is carried out alone, his
naming of each of the other creatures brought to him by God (Genesis 2:19–20). This appears to be an exercise of the authority and the dominion given to Adam in Genesis 1:28.
Verse 20 also states that, among all the animals, none was found to be a
suitable helper for him, which leads into the account of the creation
of Eve.
The first woman is created out of one of Adam's ribs to be ezer kenegdo (עזר כנגדו ‘êzer kəneḡdō) – a term notably difficult to translate – to the man. Kəneḡdō means "alongside, opposite, a counterpart to him", and ‘êzer means active intervention on behalf of the other person. God's naming of the elements of the cosmos in Genesis 1 illustrated his authority over creation; now the man's naming of the animals (and of Woman) illustrates Adam's authority within creation.
The woman is called ishah (אשה ’iš-šāh), "Woman", with an explanation that this is because she was taken from ish (אִישׁ ’îš), meaning "man", but the two words are not in fact connected.
Adam rejoices at being given a helper, exclaiming (or singing) that she is "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh". Henri Blocher refers to Adam's words as "poetry"; Alistair Wilson proposes that they should be treated as "song".
Later, after the story of the Garden is complete, the woman receives a name: Ḥawwāh (חוה , Eve). This means "living" in Hebrew, from a root that can also mean "snake". Assyriologist Samuel Noah Kramer connects Eve's creation to the ancient Sumerian myth of Enki, who was healed by the goddess Nin-ti, "the Lady of the rib"; this became "the Lady who makes live" via a pun on the word ti, which means both "rib" and "to make live" in Sumerian. The Hebrew word traditionally translated "rib" in English can also mean "side", "chamber", or "beam".
A long-standing exegetical tradition holds that the use of a rib from
man's side emphasises that both man and woman have equal dignity, for
woman was created from the same material as man, shaped and given life
by the same processes.
The Genesis creation narrative inspired a genre of Jewish and Christian literature known as the Hexameral literature.
This literature was dedicated to the composition of commentaries,
homilies, and treatises concerned with the exegesis of the biblical
creation narrative through ancient and medieval times. The first
Christian example of this genre was the Hexaemeron of the fourth-century theologian Basil of Caesarea, and many other works went on to be written from authors including Augustine of Hippo, Jacob of Serugh, Jacob of Edessa, Bonaventure, and so on.
Framework interpretation
The framework interpretation (also known as the "literary framework"
view, "framework theory", or "framework hypothesis") is a description of
the structure of the first creation narrative (more precisely, Genesis 1:1–2:4a).
Biblical scholars and theologians present the structure as evidence
that the first creation narrative constitutes a symbolic rather than
literal presentation of creation.
Two triads and three kingdoms
Kline's analysis divides the six days of creation in Genesis into two
groups of three ("triads"). The introduction, Genesis 1:1–2, "In the
beginning… the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon
the face of the deep…", describes the primal universe containing
darkness, a watery "deep", and a formless earth, over which hovers the
spirit of God. The following three days describe the first triad: the
creation of light and its separation from the primal darkness (Gen.
1:3–5); the creation of the "firmament" within the primal waters so that
the heavens (space between the firmament and the surface of the seas)
and the "waters under the firmament" can appear (Gen. 1:6–8); and the
separation of the waters under the firmament into seas and dry land with
its plants and trees. The second triad describes the peopling of the
three elements of the first: sun, moon, and stars for the day and night
(Gen. 1:14–19), fish and birds for the heavens and seas (Gen. 1:20–23),
and finally animals and man for the vegetated land (24–31). This framework is illustrated in the following table.
First triad— Creation Kingdoms
Second triad— Creature Kinds
Day 1 (Light)
Let there be light (1:3).
Let there be lights (1:14).
Day 4 (Luminaries)
Day 2 (Sky/Water)
Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters (1:6).
Let the water teem with creatures and let birds fly above the earth (1:20).
Day 5 (Birds/Fish)
Day 3 (Land/Vegetation)
Let dry land appear (1:9). Let the land produce vegetation (1:11).
Let the land produce living creatures (1:24). Let us make man (1:26). I give you every seed bearing plant... and every tree that has fruit with seed in it... for food (1:29).
Day 6 (Land animals/Humans)
The Creator King
Day 7 (Sabbath)
Differences exist on how to classify the two triads, but Kline's
analysis is suggestive: the first triad (days 1–3) narrates the
establishment of the creation kingdoms, and the second triad (days 4–6),
the production of the creature kinds. Furthermore, this structure is
not without theological significance, for all the created realms and
regents of the six days are subordinate vassals of God, who takes His
royal Sabbath rest as the Creator King on the seventh day. Thus, the
seventh day marks the climax of the creation week.
It has been unfortunate that one
device which our narrative uses to express the coherence and
purposiveness of the creator's work, namely, the distribution of the
various creative acts to six days, has been seized on and interpreted
over-literalistically… The six day schema is but one of several means
employed in this chapter to stress the system and order that has been
built into creation. Other devices include the use of repeating
formulae, the tendency to group words and phrases into tens and sevens,
literary techniques such as chiasm and inclusio, the arrangement of
creative acts into matching groups, and so on. If these hints were not
sufficient to indicate the schematization of the six-day creation story,
the very content of the narrative points in the same direction.
The framework view has been successful in the modern era because it
is seen as a resolution of the traditional conflict between the Genesis
creation narrative and modern science. It presents an alternative to literalistic interpretations of the Genesis narratives, which are advocated by some conservative Christians and creationists
at a popular level. Creationists who take a literalist approach reject
symbolic or allegorical interpretations of the Genesis creation
narrative as conceding to scientific authority at the expense of
biblical authority. Advocates of the framework view respond by noting that Scripture affirms God's general revelation in nature (cf. Psalm 19; Romans 1:19–20);
therefore, in our search for the truth about the origins of the
universe, we must be sensitive to both the "book of words" (Scripture)
and the "book of works" (nature). Since God is the author of both
"books", we should expect that they do not conflict with each other when
properly interpreted.
Opponents of the framework interpretation include James Barr, Andrew Steinmann, Robert McCabe, and Ting Wang. Additionally, some systematic theologians, such as Wayne Grudem and Millard Erickson, have criticised the framework interpretation, deeming it an unsuitable reading of the Genesis text.
Grudem states that, "while the 'framework' view does not deny the
truthfulness of Scripture, it adopts an interpretation of Scripture
which, upon closer inspection, seems very unlikely".
The meaning to be derived from the Genesis creation narrative will depend on the reader's understanding of its genre, the literary "type" to which it belongs (e.g., creation myth, historical saga, or scientific cosmology).
While biblical criticism
has deconstructed many traditional views on the Bible, conservative
evangelical traditions have tended to interpret the Genesis creation
narrative in a literal way, but have also engaged into (sometimes
heated) dispute on the interpretation of Genesis.
According to Biblical scholar Francis Andersen, misunderstanding the intention of the author(s) and the culture within which they wrote, will result in a misreading. Reformedevangelical scholar Bruce Waltke cautions against one such misreading: the "woodenly literal" approach, which leads to "creation science", but also to such "implausible interpretations" as the "gap theory", the presumption of a "young earth", and the denial of evolution. Scholar of Jewish studies, Jon D. Levenson, goes further in doubting whether historicity can be attributed to Genesis at all:
How much history lies behind the
story of Genesis? Because the action of the primeval story is not
represented as taking place on the plane of ordinary human history and
has so many affinities with ancient mythology, it is very far-fetched to
speak of its narratives as historical at all.
Another scholar, Conrad Hyers, summed up the same thought by writing, "A literalist
interpretation of the Genesis accounts is inappropriate, misleading,
and unworkable [because] it presupposes and insists upon a kind of
literature and intention that is not there."
.jpg)
_British_Museum.jpg)
.jpg)
,_vol.1,_f.3_-_BL_Royal_MS_19_D_III.jpg)
_-_Vasco_Fernandes_(Museu_de_Lamego).png)
.jpg)
