chapter 3 the bible's creation narrative in the light of ... · pdf filethe bible's...

10/27/15 10:29 AM Let There Be Light

1

Chapter 3 The Bible's Creation Narrative In the Light of Modern Science:

Before the Beginning

[Slide 1] Now that we have concluded that Day One, described in Genesis 1:3-4 is the Big Bang beginning of the entire universe, where does that leave Genesis 1:2? 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved over the face of the waters. This verse must refer to a time

before the Big Bang beginning. Now perhaps you can understand why our discussion of the Genesis creation narrative began with verse 3: how that verse is understood affects how we treat what came before! If our identification of Day One with the Big Bang is correct, then verse 2 cannot refer to a physical earth, and the waters, deep, etc. cannot refer to things that are familiar to us because nothing of that sort yet exists! Just to emphasize the point: the Big Bang is the creation of the universe, not just things in the universe. It includes the creation of space itself. This is such an outrageous and counter-intuitive concept that it may take a while to fully appreciate its implications.

[Slide 2] St. Augustine had the same problem with this verse. Not of course because he saw that Day One was the beginning of the universe—he had no knowledge of that, and I suspect he never thought of space itself being created. He read the words "without form, and void" as "formless and empty", referring, he concluded, to an earth that did not yet exist. We won't go into all of the ramifications of his view, it is enough to note that this early Christian scholar around 400 AD

Let There Be Light 10/27/15 10:29 AM

2

already had concluded that the wording of verse 2 meant the material earth did not yet exist. The earth, in other words, was just a gleam in God's eye. Augustine also noted that a Syrian translation renders "moved over the face of the waters" as "brooding over the waters", adding "like that of a bird that broods over its eggs:"1 wording that looks ahead to the coming creation. Now I recognize that other, perhaps most, commentators conclude something else about verse 2—we already had cited Scofield's views.2 But let's look a bit at Augustine's conclusion that verse 2 is set before the beginning.

[Slide 3] How would one go about describing the setting of things before anything yet exists? I call this problem "describing the indescribable" because obviously one must use analogy or figurative talk. How do you talk about emptiness, nothingness, formlessness, and so on? Ironically, modern science has exactly the same problem, but

before we go there, let's pursue the question: how would one describe the indescribable?

1 Ad lit I.18.36. Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius, Hebrew-Chaladee Lexicon (published posthumously in 1846) entry on rachaph ( ) "To be moved, affected...Piel, to brood over young ones, to cherish young...figuratively used of the Spirit of God, who brooded over the shapeless mass of the earth, cherishing and vivifying...frequent use in Syr...of birds brooding over their young. ...The Arabs use in the same sense... to brood on eggs (as a hen)." Contrast this with the the 1875 revision by Benjamin Davies where the sense of hovering is introduced: "to brood or hover over, with [al] Gen. 1:2 of the divine Spirit as creatively acting on primeval chaos, also deut. 32:11 of the eagle protectingly fluttering over its young." This revision introduced a whole new and unfortunate slant in the meaning of the word—unfortunate because the revised Lexicon is what is published today. 2 Many people in reading the Genesis creation account, take the view that the earth and perhaps the sun, must have already existed prior to Day One. This was also a common view in Augustine's day. St. Augustine pointedly noted that the creation of the earth is not specifically mentioned in the Genesis creation account. He acknowledges that the Genesis narrative is not exhaustive: "When were water and earth created?... Why do we not read 'God said: "Let there be earth," and the earth was made'?" [Ad Lit. I.13.27]. Others suggest that the chaos described in verse 2 refers to a wasted Earth, or perhaps the primordial earth before God carried out the creation days (which of course implies that the earth was already in place by Day One). The footnotes of the Scofield Reference Bible reflect such a view. That means that the Genesis creation account leaves out the creation of the universe and the earth itself! unless it is incorporated in verse 1. I don't agree with this view: the universe began with Day One. But nonetheless, the creation narrative is not exhaustive; Augustine noted one example; there are several other examples that we will discover at other points in the Genesis creation narrative. Everyone who talks about Genesis 1 admits as much, although it may not be stated explicitly: for example, nowhere is the creation of life explicitly called out—one of the most amazing acts in all of creation; rather it is implied in Day Three. When we get to that point, I will suggest some reasons for this omission.


3

But let's take the easy way out and ask how other ancient writers—using the word loosely to include both written and oral records—how would other ancient traditions handle such a problem? Do any such comparable cases exist?

[Slide 4] Well, the answer to this was quite surprising to me. Yes, in one instance that I know about, such a case exists, and even better, that example comes from the same period of history and from a neighboring culture3. Now my interest here is not in comparative religion. I'm only interested in the narrow question: How would people contemporary with the writing of the Genesis creation

account describe the indescribable setting of Genesis 1:2—describe things before the beginning? I know of only one such example: I would love to know of more examples, but this one is in my view a rich and significant insight into how contemporaries would express such an indescribable situation—which may help to understand what the wording of Genesis 1:2 would mean to its intended audience. The example is found (drum roll!) in the Rig Veda, a long Hindu poem which is believed to have been composed between 1500 and 900 BC, about the same period as the Biblical account. The Rig Veda has come to us written in ancient Sanskrit but the early work was probably passed down as oral tradition (just as parts of Genesis, by its own account, were passed down, again, probably orally). The part that is similar to Genesis 1:2 is found in three verses of Hymn 129, also called the Nasadiya Sukta. Let's compare it with Genesis 1:2. As I say, this is, as far as I know, the only account contemporary with the Bible, from a nearby contemporary culture, that also describes a setting before the Beginning.

3 Trade routes between India and Egypt were long established through the Near East. Sanskrit, Aramaic and Hebrew are all in the Indo-European language family. Oral traditions tend to spread along these trade routes. The Rig Veda originated in the northwest region of the Indian Continent, adjacent to Persia and along those trade routes. Cuneiform, which first shows up in clay tablets around 3,000 BC, appears to be the earliest form of written language. Sanskrit, Babylonian, Egyptian Hieroglyphics, and Chinese characters all appear to be cuneiform derivatives, or at least they are influenced by cuneiform writing.


4

The name "Nasadiya Sukta" means "not the nonexistent". As we go through it, note the use of questions and convoluted phrases as it talks about things that are essentially indescribable—a nice literary device, I think. By possibly contemporary I mean that the date is traditionally 1500-900 B.C. but it was carried on orally for most of this time, and (according to my information) written in sanskrit only near the end.

[Slide 5] I will use two translations into English: by Ralph T. H. Griffith4 from the late 1800s; and by A. L. Basham5 from the mid-1900s. We will look at the three verses, one at a time.

Rig Veda (ca. 1500-900 BC)

Hymn CXXIX The Creation Translation by Ralph T. H. Griffith

(1826-1906)

The Nasadiya Sukta Translation by A . L . Basham

(1914-1986) 1 THEN was not non-existent nor

existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth

of water?

Then even nothingness was not, nor existence, There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it. What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping? Was there then

cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

From this verse it is evident that the setting is before the beginning. "Even nothingness was not, nor existence." "There was no realm of air, no sky beyond it." I like the way it describes the indescribable setting. The struggle to express this non-existence in words, reduces to questions: "What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?" And look at the use of the words "water" and "deep": "Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?" Apparently "cosmic" was supplied by Basham, but the point is that this is water different from what we experience here on earth, and the "deep" isn't just the depths of the ocean. These are words used in analogy to express the inexpressible, a point that St. Augustine himself made regarding Genesis 1:2. At one point he said: 4 Ralph T. H. Griffith, Hymns of the Rig Veda, (1889) 5 A. L. Basham, The Wonder that was India (1954). See also sanskritdocuments.org for another translation.


5

"We might say that by the term 'water' the sacred writer wished to designate the whole of material creation." [I.15.30]6

I agree with St. Augustine on this point, and the mention of "water" or "cosmic water" in Rig Veda refers not to water as we know it, but to the dark fluidity, so to speak, of formless nothingness.7 Continue to verse 2 of the Rig Veda. As I see it, this seems to speak specifically of the "Spirit of God" moving upon the face of the waters; or, as St. Augustine and Gesenius rendered it, "brooding" over the waters, suggestive of the pending creation (see footnote 1).

2. ... That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

... The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining. There was that One then, and there was no other.

There is nothing material here, just "breathless, breathing". In Hebrew (I don't know about Sanskrit) the same word is used for spirit, wind, and breath, which perhaps makes it easy for me to equate the Spirit with "That One", the "breath" and "wind" of the Rig Veda. The self-sustaining pre-existent one of course corresponds to God in the Genesis account. Going on to verse 3 of the Rig Veda, both it and the Bible emphasize the profound darkness of nothingness8 before the beginning:

3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness. This All was indiscriminated chaos. All that existed then was void and form less...

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness. All this was only unillumined water. That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing...

6 See also Ad. Lit. I.15.30: "Now, we may suppose that this unformed matter is meant by the following words: 'But the earth was invisible and formless, and darkness was over the abyss. And the Spirit of God was stirring above the water.' With the exception of the mention of the Spirit of God, we can surely presume that the whole passage refers to the visible creation but implies its unformed state in terms that are adapted to the unlearned. For these two elements, earth and water, are more pliable than the others in the hands of an artisan, and so with these two words it was quite fitting to indicate the unformed matter of things." Personally I don't think the reason to use these words is to be "adapted to the unlearned." I think that is gratuitous and that the ancient hearer would well understand the meaning of the words. 7 A crude analogy would be this experiment: close your eyes and then describe what you see. I don't mean the floaters, but the rest of the darkness. It is certainly not nothing and doesn't look like nothing. For me, the closest description conveys the notion of fluid but formless movement. That, I think, is what these ancient writers were trying to convey. 8 Recall the scientific fact mentioned earlier that in the Big Bang universe there is no such thing as "profound darkness" in the sense of a place emitting no radiation. Only outside of our universe could such a thing occur (in nothingness!): no background radiation whatsoever.


6

This is a "black" darkness that the light of Day One will remedy. Again, the Rig Veda elaborates as a profound darkness: "darkness wrapped in darkness." The Biblical account simply says "darkness was upon the face of the deep." This would be darkness such as never exists in our universe: a darkness with no radiation, not even the "cosmic background radiation" which exists everywhere in our universe. Just one more point: What is the water in verse 2? Note also that one translation uses "unillumined water" as equivalent to "indiscriminated chaos" which becomes the "face of the waters" in Genesis 1:2. And the phrase "form less" is almost identical to the Genesis word "without form". In either case, it is not physical water or anything that corresponds to any material thing on earth, as St. Augustine had also suggested—what I would call the "undifferentiated fluidity of nothingness". Probably you would prefer a less pretentious way of saying it. Finally, "All that existed then" and "That One which came to be" appear to be equivalent to the "earth" of Genesis 1:2, as yet non-existent. Well, this is what a contemporary to the author of the Genesis creation narrative would say. And, as far as I can see, it looks as if both accounts are describing the same thing: the setting is before the creation began.

[Slide 6] This slide summarizes some of the terms used in verse 2, all of which have analogies in the Rig Veda text cited above. I have dwelt on this correspondence between two contemporary documents, one Hebrew and the other Hindu, because I believe it confirms St. Augustine's interpretation (but for very different reasons). I take it that this is further confirmation that Genesis 1:2 does indeed refer to the nothingness that came before the

beginning. The Rig Veda says this more directly, but the similar wording of the two texts convinces me that this would be the contemporary ancient understanding at the time these respective texts were written. I suspect that both narratives came from a common ancient, probably oral, source, and that the Vedic rendition of particular words is how this verse would have been understood by Moses' ancient contemporaries. Several times in the


7

early books of the Bible, the Bible states that its own material came from earlier sources.9 Probably many of these were passed down in oral narratives.

[Slide 7] So that's what I have to say about verse 2. Now let's back up to verse 1. 1 In the beginning God created10 the heaven and the earth. What is the intended meaning of this verse? Most commentators see two ways that this verse can be understood grammatically as: "either an event

that precedes the main storyline, or else a summary of the entire pericope."11 I opt for the second choice—that it is a summary or title for the whole creation narrative. At this point, St. Augustine's theological view got somewhat sidetracked (in my view) because he felt he had to distinguish between "formless" creation (for example of the earth in 1:2) and its concrete realization. His notion was that God created everything instantaneously in the beginning (the first option) but only in a "formless" way, and then later "realized" it in the objective earth. This is the concept of creation in potential and in actuality, a view of the Roman Catholic church formalized in St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, Question 66, "Whether formlessness of created matter preceded in time its fomation?" I don't think we need to go further into this particular doctrine, for reasons that I already noted in part 1. As I see it, this is a theological cul de sac that arose because St. Augustine (and all the world at the time) did not understand why God would create in time, a topic that we will consider at another place.

9 The early books of the Bible explicitly refer to other (now lost) sources for their information. The first reference is Genesis 5:1 "The book of the generations of Adam". There are several references to "The book of Jasher" and in Kings, numerous references to the chronicles of the kings of Israel and Judah. 10 I should note here two things, which we will discuss at another time: First, "God" is the word Elohim and is used throughout Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 the word used is Yahweh. Second, the word "created" is bará, a word used only of God, and which appears at three places in Chapter 1. Elsewhere in this chapter, the word for creation is asah—make. 11 C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary (2006), p. 42. Collins opts for the first way—"verse 1 is more likely an event that precedes the storyline than a summary of the account." This is also the approach of St. Augustine. I opt for the second—that it is a summary or title for the whole creation narrative. This issue is critical, because it concerns the status of the earth in verse 2.


8

I take the second option. I see this verse as a summary statement that introduces the creation account, with various creation tasks12 spelled out in the six days that follow.13 Some theologians, most notably St. Augustine, take the first view: that this is the creation, and that the verse describes an instantaneous creation by God of the heavens, earth, and life itself. I already noted earlier that this leads to the doctrine of a two-step creation: creation in potential and creation in actuality. In my view this is strained and unnecessary: it requires a "creation" in which a thing is created virtually and then comes to realization later14 15.

[Slide 8] How does Genesis 1:2 compare with what modern science would say? In fact it compares quite well. Science says that the entire universe had a beginning, some 13.77 billion years ago. Before this time, what we now see as "outer space" simply did not exist. There was no such thing as space. Yes, I agree that this is not intuitive.

It gets worse. The universe since its beginning has expanded at about the speed of light, a bit less than 300,000 kms. The entire universe expands, including space itself. A model sometimes used to visualize this is to think of a

12 I agree with other theologians that the days of Genesis 1 describe divine workdays, and that the use of "day" has no implication of duration much less being limited to a 24 hour day. See, for example, Vern S. Poythress, Christian Interpretations of Genesis 1 (2013). He calls the workdays "analogical days", "The analogical-day theory maintains that the days in Genesis 1 are God’s workdays, which are analogous to the workdays of human beings, as indicated in Exodus 20:9–11:" (p. 9). 13 Each of the six days is introduced by "And God said." But verse 1 does not have that phrase. St. Augustine noted this fact [I.8], but did not draw the conclusion that therefore creation as such is not marked by this verse, but rather it is a summary heading for the creative works that are recorded in the Days beginning with verse 3. 14 Augustine concluded that (because God is timeless) the creation of everything was instantaneous (omnia simul), but that they were created in potential, with the realization occurring in time. At one place [V.5.13] he said that God "Created potentially, for time would bring them into view in the ages to come." Henry Woods, Augustine and Evolution (1924) p. 14, remarks on Omnia simul: "He conceived creation as proceeding from the Creator, a unit including all things whatsoever that are to exist to the end of time, and corresponding to the single creative mandate. ... [H]e places the analogue of all things, as yet without individual existence, existing in elementary matter as forms in potency, forms decreed to exist, therefore no figments of the mind... distinguishing objectively the things that are to be, from mere possibilities never to be actuated."; p. 16 "St. Augustine takes unformed matter in the scriptural sense for matter without definite external form. [cf. Wisdom of Solomon, 11:18, 'Thy almighty hand which made the world of matter without form.']" 15 Daniel Friedmann describes the Kabbalistic view of a similar 2-step creation process in his (very readable) books The Genesis One Code (2012) and The Broken Gift (2013). Both of these are available as Kindle ebooks.


9

two-dimensional universe as the surface of an expanding balloon. This expansion is not into space because no space exists outside of the universe. Inside the balloon and outside of the balloon it is pure emptiness, not space. The balloon expands into nothingness. Since we (and experimental science) are confined to the universe, we can see the expansion as an increasing distance between any two points of space. Of course our space is three-dimensions but the idea is the same. I say the universe expands into nothingness: at least that is what the Bible would say, I think. Some scientists assume there is something out there that the universe expands into called the multiverse: in any case, it is not space. But since all of experimental science is confined to our own universe, any such view is unprovable speculation. All of space (in the universe, of course) has some kind of radiation in it, so nowhere is there complete darkness. But outside of the universe there would be absolute, profound darkness, with no radiation whatever, such as it is impossible to find anywhere within the universe. The Rig Veda says it pretty well. One feature of this expansion is that the distance between objects (such as stars) increases with time due simply to the expansion of the universe. Also all light waves get longer with time, which means the light frequency gets lower, or to put it equivalently, the light "cools". It was this expansion of the universe that caused the intense light in the beginning to cool down over time so that today the "background" radiation one would see looking into an empty part of space is a chilly 2.76° K, pretty close to absolute zero. Genesis 1:2 would be familiar to science in a setting placed outside of the universe, or to put it another way, before the beginning.


10

[Slide 9] So in conclusion, Genesis 1:1-2 are set before the actual creation commences. No actual creation occurs here. Verse 2 is set before the beginning, which is pure nothingness with the Spirit of God "brooding" in preparation to begin creation. Day One begins in verse 3, and is identified with the Big Bang origin of everything, including the universe and space itself, in the creation of light. I believe the concept of creation in potential is an

un-necessary complication that is not required by the Genesis narrative. Thank you for your attention. David C. Bossard

chapter 3 the bible's creation narrative in the light of ... · pdf filethe bible's...

Documents