Читать книгу Genesis 1-11 - David M. Carr - Страница 29

Genesis 1:1–2:3 within Its Priestly ContextAs read above, Gen 1 represents a powerful response to both non-biblical (esp. the Enuma Elish epic) and biblical (Gen 2–3 along with Psalm 104) textual precursors, taking up elements of each in the process of presenting its distinctive picture of a solely dominant God, who surpasses Marduk, making humans as divine images for godlike dominance over creation. This presentation of God’s creation of humans as god-imagesHumans as God’s image is as close as the Bible gets to the sort of theogonies that were common in Egypt and Mesopotamia. As discussed above, these humans are godlike in only a qualified sense, and they are presented in Gen 1 as enjoying a power purely derivative of their sovereign creator. Nevertheless, insofar as the six days of creation in Gen 1 are ultimately focused on God’s creation of humanity as God’s three-dimensional representatives on earth, this account represents a distinctive Judean alternative to ancient, non-Judean worldviews focused on multiple deities who were represented on earth by manufactured statues and (occasionally for high gods) human kings.¹²¹ Within this perspective, all humans are given a highly elevated, semi-divine status, and their fertile multiplication is seen as divinely empowered, rather than—as, e.g., in the Atrahasis Epic—being a feature that continually annoys the gods.

Rest and the SabbathThis creation account (at least in its present form) is articulated in an implicitly Sabbath-focused six-day structure that leads up to God’s seventh-day ceasing from God’s work, which in turn corresponds to the “rest” in temple sanctuaries typically enjoyed by gods in Near Eastern cosmogonies. Within Gen 1 itself, however, the word “rest” is never used for what God does, and there is no explicit reference here to a sanctuary distinct from the cosmos that God just created.¹²² Rather, that sanctuary only emerges in P toward the end of Exodus with the making of the wilderness tabernacle and God’s climactic descent to dwell in it (Exod 25–31, 35–40). At this juncture we see the reemergence of the Sabbath theme so crucial to the broader structure of Gen 1.

Cosmogony and TempleThe tabernacle sanctuary, however, only emerges as a concluding divine response to profound breaks after God has finished God’s “very good” creation (Gen 1). In this respect, the broader Priestly narrative of which Gen 1 is a part diverges profoundly from the Enuma Elish epic (and comparable non-biblical cosmogonies) that describe the creation of temples as the concluding act of the cosmogony proper. To be sure, Gen 1 itself can be read as a description of God’s creation of the whole cosmos as a temple-like structure, starting with the roof-plate on day two (1:6–8), continuing with the earth floor sprouting with plants on day three (1:9–13), and also featuring lamps in the roof-plate on day four (1:14–18).¹²³ Nevertheless, this is quite a different concept from the special sanctified space (within the broader world) of a temple or tabernacle. Within P, the need for such a tabernacle within the world only occurs when the earth of God’s very good creation is corrupted by violence (Gen 6:12), thus causing God to make it uninhabitable through covering it again with the primeval ocean (תהום; Gen 7:11; cf. 1:2), and thus killing all life on the earthly biome that was not on the ark. The priestly tabernacle, with its echoes of Gen 1, is part of a series of divine provisions on the other side of this destruction to regulate the violence that has emerged in God’s creation (e.g., Gen 9:2–6; Lev 17) and create a space within the broader earthly biome where God can again “go around” in the human world (now with Israel), as God once did, pre-flood, with Enoch and Noah (Gen 5:24; 6:9).¹²⁴

A traumatic background for P’s creation narrativeWe will return to Priestly emphasis on themes of violence in the commentary on the flood narrative. For now it is just relevant to note that some kind of experience of social violence, perhaps the trauma of the destruction of Jerusalem and exile in Babylonia, likely stands in the background of the Priestly document’s split between a pre-violence cosmos in Gen 1 and the corruption of the earth and subsequent developments seen in the rest of P.¹²⁵ Moreover, either the Neo-Assyrian or Neo-Babylonian periods form a likely context for the engagement with and opposition to the claims of the Enuma Elish epic in Gen 1.¹²⁶ Though debate continues about the dating of P, one’s interpretation of Gen 1 as part of P can be enhanced through a non-reductionistic understanding of its picture of God’s absolute dominion and original cosmic peace as addressing some kind of Judean experience of communal trauma.

Creation as prologueTurning to the literary context of Gen 1 in a broader Priestly document, this implicitly Sabbath-focused Priestly cosmogony in Gen 1 represents the introduction to a longer Priestly work that originally extended at least up to the Sabbath-focused, Priestly description of the making of the tabernacle in the wilderness (Exod 25–40).¹²⁷ Functionally, this broader Priestly work (up through Exod 25–40), and not Gen 1 alone, is the full counterpart to the Enuma Elish epic. Through this whole narrative, P offers an “etiology” of God’s dominance and God’s dwelling within an earth corrupted by violence, to compete with the Enuma Elish epic’s etiology of Marduk’s dominance and Marduk’s Esagila temple in Babylon. Within this broader context, Gen 1:1–2:3 depicts God’s originally intended, peaceful and orderly perfect cosmos, presided over by godlike humans.

Creation as anticipationThese anticipations of the wilderness tabernacle in P point to other ways that Gen 1 introduces multiple themes that are developed in later Priestly texts, often through intensified application to ever narrowing circles of Abraham and his heirs in the “children of Israel.” The multiplication blessing given to humanity at the outset (1:28) is echoed in multiplication commands given to Noah and his sons in the wake of the flood (9:1, 7) and even applied to the animals who lacked such a blessing in the initial creation (8:17b; cf. 1:24–25). Then, in the ancestral history, this multiplication promise is specifically applied to Abraham (17:6), now intensified with the promise that “nations” and even “kings” will emerge from him.¹²⁸

As we have seen already in the case of the Sabbath-focused construction of the wilderness tabernacle (Exod 25–31, 35–40), the themes introduced in Gen 1 are ultimately unfolded in the portion of P that is focused on the Israelites. To start, the more specific multiplication promise to Abraham is transmitted through his heirs, Isaac (28:3) and Jacob/Israel (35:11; also 48:4), and then it is fulfilled in Egypt among the “children of Israel” (Exod 1:7; see also 47:27). Moreover, these children of Israel are given kosher food instructions that narrow those that were given to humanity as a whole in the wake of the flood (Lev 11; cf. Gen 1:29; 9:2–6). Finally, the Israelites receive God’s command to observe a Sabbath that is analogous to God’s ceasing of work on the seventh day (Exod 16:4–5, 22–30; 20:8–11). Indeed, this Sabbath theme is then thoroughly woven through later priestly texts (see esp. 31:12–17; 35:1–3; Lev 16:31; 19:3, 30; 23:3 and passim; 26:2; Num 15:32–36; 28:9–10), including the unfolding of the Sabbath theme into the idea of a Sabbath-jubilee year for the land of Israel (Lev 25; 26:34–35; 43).¹²⁹ These are important ways in which Gen 1 is significant in its function as the beginning of a broader Priestly account.

The universal vision in P’s creation narrativeAt the same time, Gen 1 also has significance in itself, in applying to humanity as a whole themes that could have been applied by P exclusively to Israel, or even a specific group within Israel, such as men or male priests. Take especially the theme of humans as God’s image on earth (1:26–27). Though this image theme is generally restricted in ancient Near Eastern non-biblical texts to sanctified cult images or kings, P does not limit this quality to just priests, Israelites or men. Instead, P initially applies this image to all of humanity, male and female, and this quality is seen as persisting and having significance after the flood (Gen 9:6). It is not lost (contrary to later Christian theology) nor limited by subsequent historical events.¹³⁰

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Universal aspects of the SabbathFinally, this exegesis should not overlook the implicit emphasis across Gen 1:1–2:3 on anticipating the Sabbath. Christian ambivalence toward the Sabbath has contributed to a tendency among non-Jewish interpreters to read the Bible’s first creation account if it ended with the creation of humans. Indeed, this tendency was enshrined in the chapter-structure of Genesis when thirteenth-century Christian theologians introduced the present chapter division, placing the first six days of creation into chapter one (Gen 1:1–31) while relegating God’s blessing and sanctification of the seventh day to the outset of chapter two (Gen 2:1–3).¹³⁹ This chapter division obscured the way Gen 1:1–2:3 as a whole emphasizes the idea that a seven-day, Sabbath-oriented time system is built into the very structure of creation (see also Exod 16:4–5, 22–30). Moreover, even though subsequent biblical texts treat this creation-founded Sabbath as a practice exclusive to Israel (e.g., Gen 20:8–11; 31:12–17), the Gen 1 description of all humans as God’s representatives on earth (Gen 1:26–27) suggests that God’s cessation of work in Gen 2:2–3 may have implications for all humans. Overall, having such a prominent Sabbath emphasis in the Bible’s programmatic introduction provides a biblical foundation to readings, such as that of Abraham Heschel, of the relevance and significance of the biblical Sabbath to humanity as a whole.¹⁴⁰