The Bible is a product of the Ancient Near East. When we view the Bible also from the perspective of literature, we can appreciate the context out of which it was birthed, the particulars of the people who brought it forth, and its similarities to other ANE texts.
Although the creation account in Genesis differs from other creation accounts and has its own unique characteristics, there are also many ANE allusions. The idea of “tohu v’vohu,” of the earth being in utter chaos prior to Creation, of the “firmament (or dome)” above the earth, our world of humanity being separated by the “upper” and “lower” waters, and of course even the concept of the Garden of Eden. Interestingly, the word
Ancient
The heart of ancient Mesopotamia is between the two great rivers of the Tigris and
The flood story of Noah is also interestingly paralleled in earlier ANE versions; however, I will not expand on this as my friend Derek has blogged on it extensively in the past.
Even the idea of the
As a religious Jew I obviously attribute theological truth to Genesis as Scripture. However, it is important that we understand Genesis for what it is, and what it is not. We should not try to read especially the creation account too literally. It was never intended to be a scientific or historical account of Creation (although it may contain scientific and historical information). Rather, Genesis is a theological account of Creation. As I mentioned last week, Genesis is meant to directly establish G-d as the sovereign of the universe. As such, the Torah speaks only in general terms to illustrate that nothing came into being except at G-d's command. Unlike other origin stories circulating around the Ancient Near East, the Biblical account makes no attempt to explain the origins of G-d, or try to persuade the listener of God's existence. The existence of G-d, in Judaism, is an axiomatic fact. Therefore it immediately jumps to the explanation of G-d's creation of heaven and earth, and to what G-d expects of His creation.
Joshua,
I think you have a very interesting point. CS Lewis commented that he didn't think the whole of the Bible should be taken literally. I like your comment about the authority of G-d in the account. I think we, believers, paint ourselves into an intellectual corner by saying that Genesis should be treated as a word for word literal account of the creation.
So, rabbi, you suggest the Bible cannot be taken literally. I've heard this before. It usually precedes the phrase: "I'm a theistic evolutionist".
Are you?
One other question, rabbi:
For you, at what point does Genesis become literal? At Noah? Abraham? Israel? Or do you say, as some JEDP theorists do, that the whole Torah was pieced together over centuries by multiple authors and editors before arriving in its final form in 400 BC, thus very little of it is historically factual?
I understand the JEDP theory is being advocated by some big names at UMJC, yet I find that theory difficult to swallow and still maintain a non-liberal view of textual interpretation. I'm curious what your view is.
Judah,
Why do you have to read into everything? Why can't you just accept the fact that I simply wrote a post discussing some ANE similarities to the Genesis account.
This is just standard stuff in any commentary to the text.
Rabbi,
You said Genesis isn't to be taken literally, I asked if that meant you're a theistic evolutionist, and what implications that has on the rest of Torah. I ask these things because they are issues I have wrestled with myself.
If your blog is not opened to real questions, you should close comments altogether.
I assure you my questions are real ones without pointy sticks behind them.
Oh, I have a bad feeling the conversation is going to sink into passé folk concepts and nature religion, the proponants of which will be sure they're based on Darwin and science. In my experience Gould was wrong when he said Creationism has spread like wildfire because evolution is so poorly taught. It's not taught at all. Professors will knock out with the most incredibly hedious impossible rubbish thinking it's established fact. Few can't seem to appreciate that evolution is actually in formal disproof.
I think it is a matter of faith. Either we have faith that the written word is a production of God and all really happened, or we just don't have faith.
Stepping away from Gen. for a moment to make a point: Do we believe that the burning bush in the desert was real, or we succumb to the myriad humanistic theoties out there?
Hello...this is the Torah and Moses' experience happened just as it was recorded. if we think otherwise, we have no business to be believers in God's word.
I think Reb Yosh is interpreting Genesis "literally," that is, according to the proper rules of interpretation for each respective genre represented within Genesis. Genesis 1 is a different genre than Genesis 2-3; Genesis 1-11 is vastly different from chapter 12 on. We have to understand what the text is saying, and what it is not.
Seth- yes, I learned that in my Intro to Religion class freshman year...
Sometimes people build theology on less-than-scholarly work... some get so convinced of a particular doctrine or that the Bible can only say and mean what they think it says or means... any challenge to that totally blows their mind.
And in the end, G-d still is... and He's not freaked out about any of it.
"Art does not draw from itself alone what it gives to things; it spreads over them a secret which it has first seized by suprise in them, in their invisible substance or in their endless exchanges and correspondences...a world more real than the real offered to the sense"
-Jacques Maritain
This was used in Markus Bockmuehl's, "Seeing the Word." This is a book all about refocusing New Testament Studies to see how faith becomes a primary reading of the text without needing harmonize, justify, and/or deny any particular scientific approach (that may seem to exclude such faith). Soemtimes Bockmuhel challenges biblical critics on key issues, but he doesn't exclude all of their methods outright. He sees a redemptive purpose in the scientific endeavor were it to have a shifting focus in certain areas. It is the best work I've ever read on this matter, and I think its value works with TaNaKh also.
Here is one primary premise of the book (though there are many others, this relates to the quote I posted in the beggining the most):
The primary concern of Biblical studies oughtn't be the "presumed author," but rather the intended reader. Why? Because the author is assuming from the get-go that the reader believes the claim. In our case, this is important because Genesis isn't even concerned with giving authorship kudos. The book of Genesis simply IS. The author has no interest in shifting the focus. With this literary reality respected, the scientific question becomes: how would this read to its original audience? In this case we need to look at other Near Eastern cultures to discover the similarities and differences. Only in the comparison can we discover what is truly unique, and more importantly what was INTENDED to be truly unique. Maybe some things were intended to look similar precisely because it would reveal inner truths. The point is that, like art, the Bible may not give us all the information there was or the most plain senses at all times. It gives us what can be seen beyond our limited senses, but expressed through those very same limits. The Bible gives us Truth...NOT Facts, though at times it may give us both.
Seth, Anon., and Benjamin,
Exactly! Thanks for your intelligent and coherent responses.
>> I think Reb Yosh is interpreting Genesis "literally"
LOL. Love the quotes around literally.
Look, I'm opened to the possibility of old earth, I'm even opened to the possibility of theistic evolution. But I would like some guidance on how one interprets the rest of the Torah if the creation account is, as Rabbi Brumbach says, not to be read "too literally".
(Again, heheh, I love the varying degrees of 'literally'.)
Judah,
Just to clarify ... I do indeed believe G-d "literally" created the world in which we live. This is absolutely clear. As I mentioned above, "Genesis is a theological account of Creation ... [it] is meant to directly establish G-d as the sovereign of the universe. As such, the Torah speaks only in general terms to illustrate that nothing came into being except at G-d's command."
I may not be the best person to respond to the science of all this as this is not my specialty. However, the details are indeed open to discussion and maybe not be as clear as we would like to suppose. Are there some aspects of evolution ... sure, on a macro level (not a micro level). Could the earth be older than 6,000 years? Most definitely (but how old?).
Let's make clear that even the 6,000 years is human guesswork as there are no dates mentioned. It is assumed by trying to calculate "generations." But what exactly counts as a "generation?" Are there generations that get skipped? Should every generation be calculated by the same number of years?
This only just raises more questions.
Additionally, even the idea of beginning is complicated. The Hebrew implies that this was not THE Beginning, but only A beginning (of the creation of heaven and earth). And the Torah also notes that Adam and Even were not the first people (see for example Gen. 4:14-18). The Torah acknowledges the existence of cities, people, and even other cultures/ethnicities.
In summary, here is what we know for sure - everything has its origin in HaShem. Second, as Einstein confirmed, out of nothing comes nothing. You cannot start with nothing and end up with something. So all that exists had to have an origin. And that our understanding of Gen. 1 cannot be literal 24 hour days, or a literal 7 day period. To get too caught-up in this is to miss the main theological point of the chapter.
Other than that, there are a number of possibilities. But for that, I am not the best person to discuss this with. It is not that we cannot rely or trust in the text. But rather, we need to try to put ourselves into the context of the original hearers of the text. How might they have understood it?
Not sure if this helps.
I think you mean micro in place of macro. Micro-evolution is simply lateral speciation, which is well-known. Macro-evolution really means transpeciation, which is not possible, and no one is a Gradualist anymore anyway.
Einstein did not prove the 1st law of Thermodynamics. The atomic age and his equation showed us that energy and mass are the same thing in different forms. This introduced the supremacy of entropy, which basically eventually crushed evolution. A fraction of energy that runs all systems (including our own bodies) turns in on itself and wears away and eventually destroys the mechanism. Basically, this is why we age and die. Even the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is subject to entropy.
The days of creation would actually have to be literal days. Every element of creation is tied into another. Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter's mutual role in creating soil fertility is one. All organisms have to be fully functioning as well at once, or oxygen would cause decomposition.
All systems are in decline; nothing builds toward complexity. That was merely the charming Victorian Progress Theory which still haunts the popular forum. Uniformitarianism can even be found in lower level textbooks, museum displays and dominates the press.
Intelligent Design is flourishing as fast now as Creationism. It’s interesting to see scientists believing in creation but no God.
Also, one note: Genesis 4 does not indicate other people exist. We do not know how many descendants Cain and Able already had. Sometimes entire tribes are referenced under their patriarch. Cain also built a city, and yet taken literally only his immediate family could have dwelt in it and there would have been nobody to build it.
Geneticists are still backworking DNA, trying to find traces of origins that way. But one thing evolutionists and creationists always agreed on was that all people had to come from two people. When Harvard's Carlton Coon proposed lateral evolution in 1962 (Origin of Races) there was a blow out! Geneticists had enough information at that time to prove all human kind was closely related. If anyone now proposes God created other Adam and Eves, genetics would also contradict them.
David,
Regarding your comment to Gen 4, not true.
There is no way 2 human beings can pop out so many kids that Cain is worried "someone" will kill me. Otherwise why would G-d need to "mark" Cain?
Cain wanders also to live in another populated area (Nod), and marries a woman of another people and bears children.
Again, if you are going to read this literally, than Cain and Abel were the first two children and Seth is the 3rd.
If so, then how can there already be other peoples and cities?
Again ... just to clarify, none of this impacts the theology of the text itself. Adam and Even may not be literally the first two people on earth, but they are the first two G-d begins His story with (which is very significant). And it is through these descendants the rest of the Biblical narrative focuses on.
The essential message of the text is not changed. It might challenge some of our presuppositions, but not the essentials of our theology.
G-d is still the Creator and created Adam and Eve (and everything else).
Rabbi,
Thanks for your comments and clarifying your position. I was just curious how, if you were a theistic evolutionist or an old earth creationist, your positions work out for the rest of the Torah.
Thanks for responding.
When I was 11yrs old in my 6th grade sience unit, teaching 0n 0rigins, befor terms like theistic evolutionist,0r old earth creationist, I said to my teacher(Mr.Sills one of those truly great teachers hopfully every student will get to have at least once during their early education.)why? couldn't evolution(micro)(even macro to my mind at the time)be part of the mecanics G-d used in creation. Two years later a Catholic Bishop receives the Nobel Prize in sience for writting a paper saying the same thing,in acidemic terms. Guys' don't puff yourselves up here. This is not stuff of higher critical thinking.(an 11yr old for crying out loud) It of cource could be that leavel of discourse but that is not Reb Joshuas message here. I read it as he's documenting here the authority of Torah, B'Resheet in particular, by the use of source documents. What The Book is not, is very critical. We all know assumptions read into the text can lead to adding to the text, which is just as forbidin as deleating content. Reb Joshua is trying to bring balance here in his discussion of the Genesis authoriy. A side not: Be carful with literalisim, and as previously stated how literal interpretaion is discussed by the author to,his,audiance. For a little levity here, a humerous example of the extreme. When my wife was working in a Bible book store,this was as late as the early 90's, twice pople came in saying "I only want to see the King James versions. The Bible Paul literally preached from.
writting
No offense, Rik, but perhaps you should have paid more attention in English and spelling. :-)
It is a genetic impossibility that there could have been any other progenitors of the entire human race than 2 people. However, there are some good books by American scientific creationists for lay people that might be of help to you. Dr. Gary Parker is a wonderful research biologist who can speak and write on many levels. He holds his PhD from Ball State U. He authored many evolutionary texts on the microbiologic level before he became a creationist.
One of his introductory books on the debate is What is Creation Science?
For secularists, Michael Denton's Evolution: a Theory in Crisis is a great read. He's an Australian MD and PhD in microbiology.He is a pioneer of Intelligent Design.
There is the foundational book for Creation Science by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb The Genesis Flood, in which they render mathamatics that show how actual population doubling and stats work. You'd be surprised at how two people can populate the world. Scientific Creationism is another.
One note: much has collapsed in evolution since these books were written, so you'll have to appreciate that gradualism is basically defunct. Geology has also moved into Neo Catasrophist mode.
I hope this helps.
David,
I do not necessarily disagree with you. It is just that Adam and Even may or may not have been those two people.
Again, if you want to read this literally, if Cain and Abel were the first two children and Seth is the 3rd, then how can there already be other peoples and cities?
The first few chapter note cities as far away as Mesopotamia (Erech, Shinar/Sumer, etc.).
Of course G-d created them, but whether or not they were the first two people is open to discussion.
Either these several references are later insertions due to redaction, or if literal, they imply that other peoples and cities existed at the time. You cannot have it both ways. So, nu ... the question is which is it?
Judah,
As I have stated earlier, the theological point is clear. So in my opinion that point (G-d as sovereign of all of Creation) paves the way for the rest of the biblical narrative.
The Bible never makes an attempt to prove the existence of G-d. As such, in Judaism, the existence of G-d is taken as an axiomatic fact.
So the question for us Jews is not whether or not G-d exists (that's a given), rather the question is then what does G-d expect of us.
So from a Jewish perspective the rest of the biblical narrative describes what G-d expects of us.
I understand, Yosh. I'm not hammering on you, either. I like your blog. I've been slammed by several book productions and can't devote too much time to blogging, so things may come out from the shoulder. However, two people can produce the present world's population in the amount of time before the Flood, even if reading those as literal generations by our interpretation of generation today. Remember, the lifespan difference.
With long life spans, Cain would rightly fear any man who was to be born for hundreds of years. If there were other people created ex nihilo, their descendants should have had some literary preservation of this. There is none. In all the creation Semitic accounts, there is nada. In fact, given intermarried, we should also have this since they would be ours as well. But how? How can our DNA go back and stop at more than one code?
Biologically it would also be impossible. There has to be an original off which all variation comes. There must be a median pole that allows swings to the right and left.
The very fact that so much lateral variation exists in all species (house cat and lion are related) is that somebody very intelligent started with only two of each and planned to avoid any genetic load. All the variation we see in the human race today is encrypted in each one of us. Siblings could have interbred for generations without fear of genetic load. They would have been perfect. Therefore there were no somatic mutations to pass along. The mutation rate of the genome is known. Once on an average of every 10 (7) replications of the DNA molecule will an uncorrected mutation get by. That is incredibly rare, but we know obviously that it happens. By that rate, however, we know that generations would have been free from somatic mutations.
The human race was so young that at Abram’s time it was still acceptable in those cultures to marry a half sister if she was a sister on the father’s side. There still wasn’t enough genetic load to worry about. Now, you can’t even breed with a cousin (or shouldn’t).
Genesis doesn’t mention how much time passes between key events. I noted earlier but did not mention that you subscribe to “a beginning” rather than “the beginning.” You should note the scholarly study of that. Even Alexander Heidel notes (The Babylonian Genesis) that in ancient Hebrew adverbial expressions omit the article but are in the absolute. You studied in Europe: you might be able to get Eduard Konig’s Historish-comparative Sytax der hebraisher Sprache (Leipzig, 1897.)
I think you’d do extremely well with Scientific Creationism. You should really check into a lot of the books and weight the balance.
David,
(If this is David N. from Boston, I did not realize this was you).
Thank you for those references, I will check them out.
Just to further clarify, I agree that biologically there has to be two common ancestors, etc.
But also, as you noted, "Genesis doesn’t mention how much time passes between key events."
Additionally, I am not necessarily disagreeing that BY THE FLOOD populations could have been quite large given assumed rates of reproduction.
But the question still comes to the TIME OF CAIN. Again, if we want to read this literally, if Cain and Abel were the first two children and Seth is the 3rd, then how can there already be other peoples and cities?
Either the references are later insertions due to redaction, or if literal, they imply other possibilities.
Either way we come back to the question that kicked off all the comments. How literally are we to read Genesis?
I continue to stick to the point that Genesis ch. 1 is not meant to be read too literally. That the account is a theological account (although it may contain historical and scientific information).