More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
In a discussion of origins we need to focus on the ontology of the cosmos. What does it mean for the world or the cosmos (or the objects in it) to exist?
Even staying in the realm of English usage we can see that we don't always use the verb create in material terms. When we create a committee, create a curriculum, create havoc or create a masterpiece, we are not involved in a material manufacturing process.
If we are going to understand a creation account from the ancient world we must understand what they meant by "creation," and to do that we must consider their cosmic ontology instead of supplying our own.
In this book I propose that people in the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system.
In this sort of functional ontology, the sun does not exist by virtue of its material properties, or even by its function as a burning ball of gas. Rather it exists by virtue of the role that it has in its sphere of existence, particular...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
In a functional ontology, to bring something into existence would require giving it a function or a role in an ordered system, rathe...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
our ontology focuses on what we believe to be most significant. In the ancient world, what was most crucial and significant to their understanding of existence was the way that the parts of the cosmos functioned, not their material status.
Consequently, to create something (cause it to exist) in the ancient world means to give it a function, not material properties. We need to note the contrast: we tend to think of the cosmos as a machine and argue whether someone is running the machine or not. The ancient world viewed the cosmos more like a company or a kingdom.12
"Create" is the English word for bringing something into existence. If existence is defined in material terms, creating is a material activity. If existence is defined in functional terms, creating is a function-giving activity. We cannot assume that creating is a material activity just because our ontology happens to be material.
It does us no good to know what "create" literally means-we have to know what bard literally means.'
BEGINNING
In Hebrew usage this adverb typically introduces a period of time rather than a point in time.'
If the "beginning" refers to the seven-day period rather than to a point in time before the seven-day period, then we would conclude that the first verse does not record a separate act of creation that occurred prior to the seven days-but that in fact the creation that it refers to is recounted in the seven days. This suggests that verse 1 serves as a literary introduction to the rest of the chapter.
The word "beginning" would be the logical term to introduce such a sequence. It would indicate the initial period, while the tbledot sections would introduce successive periods. If this were the case, the book would now have twelve formally designated sections (much more logical than eleven, considering the numbers that have symbolic significance in the Bible).
The proposals of this chapter can be summarized by the following expanded interpretive translation of verse 1: "In the initial period, God created by assigning functions throughout the heavens and the earth, and this is how he did it."
In contrast, detailed technical studies on the terms point in other directions. For example, David Tsumura, after a full semantic analysis, translates tohu as "unproductive" rather than descriptive of something without physical form or shape.'
But even the material translation of tohu could not obscure what is clear in verse 2: here at the beginning of the creation process, there is already material in existence-the waters of the deep. These primeval cosmic waters are the classic form that nonexistence takes in the functionally oriented ancient world.
we propose that tohu and bohu together convey the idea of nonexistence (in their functional ontology), that is, that the earth is described as not yet functioning in an ordered system. (Functional) creation has not yet taken place and therefore there is only (functional) nonexistence.
The creation account in Genesis 1 can then be seen to begin with no functions rather than with no material.
At this point, however, it is important to establish what we mean when we talk of functions. In our culture we even think of functions in material terms. We describe functions in scientific terms and understand function as a result of material properties. So we might describe the sun functionally as a burning ball of gas that projects heat and light, and which, by virtue of its gravitational pull, holds the solar system in orbit around it. In contrast, in the ancient world, function was not the result of material properties, but the result of purpose. The sun looks down on all and is
...more
When the ancient texts talk about how something functions in an ordered system, the system under discussion is not a cosmic or ecological sys...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
We can find out what the author means when saying all of these things are "good" by inquiring what it would mean for something not to be good.
"It is not good for the man to be alone" (Gen 2:18). This verse has nothing to do with moral perfection or quality of workmanship-it is a comment concerning function. The human condition is not functionally complete without the woman. Thus throughout Genesis 1 the refrain "it was good" expressed the functional readiness of the cosmos for human beings.
The whole process begins with verse 5, the concluding verse of the account of day one:
God called the light "day" and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening and there was morning-the first day. (Nwv)
First of all it should be observed that light is never treated as a material object in the ancient Near East, despite our modern physics. It is rather thought of as a condition, just as darkness is. So even if light were being created, one would not be able to make the claim that this is a material act. In fact, however, light itself is not the focus of this day's activities.