Sashi Jamir
Lately I have been indulging in certain concepts that relate to words such as re-thinking, re-defining, re-orienting and so on, therefore, quite naturally the title of this article begins with the word “re-visiting...” Perhaps, all this [re-] words are a sanguine sign for me… Of course, my indulgence is not a mere intellectual rhapsody but it touches my core conviction of faith. It is almost certain (or, perhaps, tentative) that everybody in our context will undoubtedly agree that the creation accounts that we find in Genesis are historical (or actually we do not care whether it be historical or not) because we have the faith to aid us. But then faith is claimed by every religion in this world! So what makes our faith different? To answer this we need to have an analytical, critical, constructive and reflective mind. This is not an easy task; in fact, it demands a stroll out of our comfort zone. Again for some of us Christ could be the overarching theme within the canonical Bible that creation account is just a secondary issue. In fact, for many systematic theologians creation account merely remains a case which is validated retro-actively through the life and work of Christ. I do not have any qualms about this approach, however, the creation accounts beg for our careful investigation because they remain the prelude to such a colossal epic both in terms of literature as well as Christian faith.
The questions that obviously explode on reading the Creation accounts are: how are we to read and understand these accounts? Do they have any referential point? In other words are they historical events? Or are they just a faith based statement? Simply put, are they historical or mystical fiction or somewhere in between? These are not easy questions, especially, because we are touching one of the stickiest issues in today’s academic studies and, that is, the issue of history. However, before we move on to these questions let me briefly comment on the biblical creation accounts.
Some Comments on the Biblical Creation Accounts
It should be noted that there are two creation accounts: Gen. 1: 1-2: 4a and Gen. 2: 4b-3: 24. A close reading would provide two distinct yet complementing assessments on the nature of the creation. The first account portrays God in a mechanical fashion whereas; in the second account God is pictured as more anthropomorphic in nature. One reason for this differing yet complimentary accounts of the creation story is that the writer or better the redactor (closely related to modern editor, however, a biblical redactor is also more than an editor—s/he is also an author) had the privilege to sift the “traditional” documents (either written or oral documents; cf. Luke 1: 1-4). It is assumed that Gen. 2: 4b-3: 24 is an earlier document which is also called as J (Jahwist) document. On the other hand Gen. 1: 1-2: 4a is a later document designated to E (Elohist).
While trying to construe the creation accounts one should realize that the author (redactor) was not witnessing live activities of God (of course, God is the beginning of everything so there is no question of having somebody recording his work!) rather the author is highlighting the traditional legends and stories. It should also be considered that the author of these accounts is a Jew writting in his (considering the patriarchal dominant society of biblical world the author of these accounts is a he and not she) own specific context. Or perhaps the Jewish author might have compiled and written these accounts in order to address to certain dire strait situation that was faced by the Israelites then.
Another important matter that we need to realize is that Old Testament Israel society did not live in a vacuum. She had her own cultural norm and tradition surrounded with quite dominant nations such as Babylonia (or Mesopotamia or modern Iraq), Egypt and so on. God did not inspire the Israelite authors to write in whole new genres, but inspired them to bring a new message in familiar genres align to her surrounding neighbors of that century. Therefore, it is less intriguing to know that the Israelite creation accounts are very similar with the Babylonian creational account called as Enuma Elish (When on High). Some of the similar statements between these two nations’ creation accounts are: The creation of the firmament, the creation of dry land, the creation of man and the gods’ rest and celebration. (This is not verbatim. See Durant, The Story of Civilization; also Speiser, The Anchor Bible: Genesis). In both the Israelites’ and the Babylonian creation accounts the beginning of the story is mythical in nature—talking about chaos-ness, spirit and god(s)—however, the point of departure for the Israel’s creation accounts from that of the Babylonian creation account is that the Israelites’ accounts try to be historic and realistic in nature. They actually direct to the history of the world and of Israel whereas, the Babylonian creation account remains a mythical description. It ends with Marduk—one of their gods—becoming the highest god and instead of leading into the history of the world or of Babylon, the focus is shifted to the account of building a temple for himself! Some sections of biblical scholars purport that Gen. 1- 2: 4a comes from the exile (when Israel was under the political control of the Babylonia beginning from 587 BC). Because it reflects concern of the exile such as the status of the sun, moon, and stars and the Sabbath; it shows signs, that is, of being written to refute the understanding of creation expressed in the Babylonian creation story.
Another crucial aspect that might help us in reading these accounts is that we should know that these accounts were not written to proof the beginning of the world scientifically. They are more or less the accounts of the conviction and faith of the Israelite people. However, it should be noted that the truth claim of the writer is that these accounts are real and historical (Meir Sternberg).
Biblical Creation: Is it History?
So far I have scribbled down some information (at the risk of confusing the readers!) of the biblical creation accounts. I did mention words such as tradition, story, legends, and myth as I commended on the biblical creational accounts. No doubt, when we skim through the biblical creation accounts we are left with a nostalgic sentiment. I am told that many Naga tribes have their own traditional creation accounts. I know that Ao Nagas (not all the villages though. Mills, The Ao Nagas) have a creational account popularly known as Long Terok (Six Stones). The story goes on to say that the Ao Nagas were originated from these six stones which are located at Chongliyimti village. Apparently, I have wrestled trying to connect our biblical creational accounts with that of my Ao Nagas’ traditional creation account. However, with the advent of Christianity the Ao Nagas’ traditional creation story has slowly died down. Alasdair MacIntyre claims that whatever and whosever tradition it is, it is always in the dialectic process—in a way always challenged by other competing tradition. His conclusion points that the stronger and better tradition will overtake the weaker one. His argument to me draws a parallel to Gamaliel’s saying which is found in the New Testament (Acts 5: 33-39). If this is the case then the true value of the traditional Ao Nagas creation account has been lost into oblivion. This is because of the arrival of the stronger, perhaps, the most authentic tradition—the Christian traditional belief system. The Christian tradition has undergone vigorous challenge both from within (Crisis of Montanism, Marcion’s heretic claims, Christological controversy, the age of reason and I can go on…) and without (initial severe persecution both by the Jews and the Romans, serious challenge by other faith tradition such as Islam, Zoroastrianism) and yet the Christian tradition has stood unshakably. If we were to agree with Gamaliel then surely our faith must be from God and that is why it is still surviving and dynamic.
Now any casual reader of the biblical accounts of creation will find out that they comprise of material that is otherwise history in the modern sense. Little wonder biblical creation accounts have attracted sharp criticism relating to history. However, the epistemology of history has evolved as any other knowledge with the advancement of civilization. This is a general language. However, we should not leave the option that the definition and construal of history might be different from one particular context to another.
So what is history? Generally, history refers to the facts, the events that (might) lie behind a narrative. Ziony Zevit defines “history as ‘a true story about the past’ of the kind that a law court seeks to establish concerned with facts.” The definition fits the history Zevit seeks to write! But for works like that of biblical creation accounts, Jan Huizinga’s definition of history is more illuminating: “History is the intellectual form in which a civilization renders account to itself of its past.” In other words history-writing (or historiography) does not merely recount the past event but it can be aided with the writer’s imaginative skills driven by certain ideological agenda. The definition indicates the plausible connection between these narratives and the doing of theology.
The creational accounts are “works of intellectual endeavor” (John Goldingay). They more likely came into being by deliberate effort rather than arbitrary construction. The intellectuals whom God inspired to write these stories were writing for God and community. When the community embraced the writing as part of their Scripture, they (the community) were not doing something that went against their nature. But like other history, they do constitute self reflection on the part of a civilization. The fact, that these narratives emphasize God’s involvement in events does not imperil their right to be called as history. A civilization has the right to decide how to give itself an account of its past, and specifically whether to include God in its account. Similarly, in this understanding of history authors are not bound to confine themselves to events that can be understood within the usual terms of cause and effect.
Definitely some will be perturbed by Huizinga’s understanding of history, rather some might label it as fiction. Fiction is a genre of writing that has no boundaries and constraints while expressing whereas, historiography is checked by a certain event or events. However, we should be aware that the understanding of history as objective and scientific eclipsed us only with the dawn of European Enlightenment—the age of reason. Rene Descartes, a champion of the modern age, claims that doubting is the beginning of all knowledge. To put it differently, knowledge is something that has to be historically proved. However notice this, for a premodern Israelite, the beginning of all knowledge is the fear of the Lord. In the modern understanding history is considered as god. History (objective analysis) is the basis of true knowledge. If something is not objective it is not history; and if it is not historically proved then it is fiction or false. Adopting this modern construal of history and imposing the same to analyze the biblical creational accounts have twisted the mindset of both the liberal and the conservative scholars.
The understanding of history in the premodern world is that it transcends mere facts and includes materials other than facts. Both the liberals and the conservatives have treated premodern historiography as if it were or should be modern historiography. They have forgotten that in writing history, a civilization, renders accounts “to itself.” Nowadays (I mean postmodern world), we live during the era of the “collapse of history.” Scholars are trying to redefine the epistemology of history. In doing this some have gone to the extreme. For instance, E.A. Knauf claims that “ancient historiography is not concerned with what actually happened but with what should have happened in order to construct a correct world.” I agree with John Goldingay that this is simply “an overstatement.” However, the world view of postmodernity might help us to evade some of the problems. Because postmodernity thinking allows one to get inside the mindset of premodernity, and acknowledges that their way of history-writing is quite different from the modern way of writing history. If premodernity assumes that the biblical creation accounts are historical, it is not a naïve assertion as modernity would speculate. Rather a postmodern approach would care less whether modernity is right in questioning whether the story happened. Instead, a postmodern would try to understand premodernity’s way of relating the story to certain vital principles.
The writer of the biblical creation accounts writes as an ancient historian who is inspired and who uses his imagination to generate materials. Thus, biblical creation accounts are an outcome of the writer’s imagination. As mentioned above, it is impossible to have human witnesses to testify the process of how the world came into being as described in Genesis 1. In fact, the writer does not claim to be passing on a revelation regarding the nature of this process. Perhaps the writer had Genesis 2 (assuming the view that the latter is the older story) as the only available traditions about creation. Therefore, it is more than a speculation to say that the writer used his imagination to produce the story of God creating the world in six days and then having a day off.
Literally, the world was probably not created in six days. As said, it is an imaginative or metaphorical language closely akin to the genre of parable. Parables are usually imaginative stories that embody certain truth and do not imply history. However to equate Genesis 1 with a parable does not mean that it is an unreliable account of the world’s beginnings. I would draw a parallel of the biblical creation accounts with that of Nathan’s parable. When Nathan narrated to David a parable about a rich man with many sheep and a poor man with only one, it relates to historical event (2 Sam. 12: 1-9). In the same way, the biblical creation accounts are in a parabolic genre that actually links to the pre-historic world. However, again if we are to talk about creation accounts as parable then it should be understood as once-for-all historical reference and not like the parable of Good Samaritan (Cf. Kidner and Barth).
The fact that the biblical creation accounts portray that the world was brought into being orderly and systematically by God in itself is a historic sentence. However, the writer of biblical creation accounts constructs these points by means of a work of imagination. The inclusion of such imaginative stories fit with the nature of historiography in the ancient world. God inspired the biblical historians not to write like the modern historians but to make them write as really good ancient historians. Many people who claim that they have received divine revelation remain confused whereas, human imagination could produce clear and true expressions.
To wind up, it is not an easy task to casually comment on the creation accounts as: yes, it is historical or no, it is fictional. To analyze this issue means to try and understand the accounts not from our context because that will be an oppressive act on our part but to enter ourselves within the accounts of creation narrative and give a chance to understand them. To reiterate, premodern Israelite historians wrote history using the event(s), her/his imagination and with certain ideology (in this case theology). Thus, the biblical creation accounts are historical—not in the modern sense—because the writers claim; and they are also statements of faith not just merely based on human intuition but on the way God has spoken and acted in Israel’s life over the centuries. This is not an exhaustive but a provisional conclusion that remain open to other genuine views.
Readers can give their feedback at: sashi_jamir@rediffmail.com
