Hexaemeron

HEXAEMERON. - Technical word indicating the biblical narrative (Gen. 1-2, 3) of the work of creation, presented as having taken place in six days (ἡξ. = "six", ἡμέρα = "day"). Strictly speaking, it would therefore exclude the questions that arise from the so-called second narrative of creation, which is found in Gen. 2, 4-19, since in this second narrative there is no mention of a development over six days. Since, however, these two accounts have a close relationship (certainly an objective one, if not one of sources and style), it will at least be necessary to set out their relations.

I. FIRST NARRATIVE

From the stylistic point of view there is no doubt that Gen. 1-2:3 is clearly to be separated from the subsequent Genesis narratives. The first impression one receives is of a spirituality (a manner of conceiving the Divinity and its operation immaterially) and of a very high artistry.

Spirituality, because while the following accounts move amid notable anthropomorphisms of the Divinity, in this first passage there is nothing of all that. The Divinity creates, produces, orders with a single omnipotent command of its mouth (for a full 10 times the form wojín'mer "and he said" recurs, in the space of 20 verses). The execution of the individual works is not represented as the result of a direct operation of God, but either as the immediate consequence of a command, or as the effect of a power communicated to secondary causes.

The artistry lies in the manner of narrating according to a given literary schema which, for particular requirements, dispenses with an exposition that is strictly historical in all its elements. It results: 1) from the parallelism of the works. The six days are preceded by the creation properly so called. Then follows the opus distinctionis in the first three days. In these one notes that the author's intent is to describe the production of the environment (= almost the essential and immovable parts of a building). Each day one work, on the third day two works. In the three following days the opus ornatus is described (= almost the movable and accessory parts in a house). Each day one work, on the third (= sixth) two works. - 2) From the parallelism of the forms, in which there is a constant and repeated schema for describing the individual works of God: a) God said; b) let there be; c) it came to be; d) execution; e) name; f) blessing; g) that it was good; h) day. - 3) From the use of the number 7 in the arrangement of the narrative: six days of divine work, a day of divine rest.

These considerations, especially regarding the artistic character, open the way to the fundamental problem: the interpretation of this narrative. What is to be held in it?

As in all questions of this kind, there are those who deny all historicity to the narrative, and those who wish to see in it the exact development of the formation of the world. It is not possible here to examine the individual positions. The historicity of the narrative, according to Catholic doctrine, must be held and rightly interpreted. The ancients, ignorant of modern cosmogony, interpreted the formulas of the narrative quite rigidly (concordist theory). Even today there are not lacking those who, precisely on the basis of the modern data of the sciences, find a marvelous agreement between the Mosaic narrative and the sciences (e.g., G. Armellini, Cosmogonia moderna e cosmogonia mosaica, in Studium, 42 [1946], pp. 152-56).

However, grave difficulties remain in wishing to admit this neo-concordist theory. For example, although the Biblical Commission leaves the freedom to interpret "day" = "epoch," it seems evident that the term "day" in the Mosaic narrative must be considered as a space of 24 hours. The best position seems to be that in which the following principles are held:

1) The Mosaic narrative and the data of the sciences move on two completely distinct planes, but not contrary ones. Moses did not wish to narrate the intimate nature and formation of the universe (he would not have been understood!), but using contemporary knowledge he drew a picture with eminently religious aims (above all the teaching of weekly work and of the sabbath rest).

2) The Mosaic narrative is historical, inasmuch as in fact all that is narrated is the work of God, either direct (the first creation, life), or indirect (the product of forces communicated to secondary causes, which product, according to the well-known concept of the Bible, is traced back directly to God).

3) The Mosaic narrative is fragmentary. The author chose only certain interventions of God in the creation and formation of the universe, those which could furnish a more appropriate religious or apologetic instruction.

4) The Mosaic narrative is to be interpreted on the basis of the physical notions of that time, as they emerge from other biblical documents (especially the Psalms and Job). Thus, for example, the conception of the firmament that separates the upper waters from the lower.

5) The Mosaic narrative is, as said above, an artistic elaboration, by which one wishes to present God preparing the dwelling for man, the last to come, but first in dignity. One sees therefore God who creates: but everything is still disorder: behold him at work to order the room. One begins by making the light in order to see (1st day). Then follows the arrangement of the fixed, immovable parts (or at least conceived as such): here then is the separation of the upper waters from the lower (2nd day), the separation of the sea from the earth and the production of the plant, which enjoy a certain immobility (3rd day). In the second series of works there is the ornamentation with things conceived as movable, the sun, the moon, the stars that traverse the sky (4th day), the birds and the fishes (5th day), the animals of the dry land and man (6th day).

6) The Mosaic narrative contains no falsehood. This could be found in two things: a) in the succession of the works in a manner entirely contrary to modern cosmogony; b) in conceiving the intervention of God in 6 days of 24 hours. Regarding a) let it be noted that the inversion of the order does not constitute a falsehood as regards the objectivity of the narrative when from the circumstances the author's artistic intention appears, since then the point of view is different, from when, humanly speaking, a cognition different from the contemporary one was not possible. Let it be remembered that God, from whose revelation alone one could know what happened before man, did not intend to teach notions of physics, geology, etc., but made use of the common manner of speaking; just as, moreover, even a modern scientist may innocently speak of the rising and setting of the sun. Regarding b), one must not forget that one of Moses' purposes is to inculcate the working week and the sabbath rest. He therefore presents God as the model of the worker. God works for six days, on the seventh he rests. This work of God is a pure anthropomorphism: God created all things with a most simple act of his will, which exists ob aeterna. Now, given the lawfulness of the use of such an anthropomorphism, the author went further and completed it up to the constitution of the Genesis week.

7) The Mosaic narrative has as its purpose the affirmation of a special theological teaching. In fact it teaches: a) the purest monotheism. All that the Hebrews could see worshiped by the Egyptians and Canaanite peoples (sun, moon, animals, plants, etc.) are simple creatures: the one true God produced them; they do not merit divine worship. b) Creation from nothing. "In the beginning..." absolute, that is, before every creature, therefore from nothing! c) The value and dignity of man. He is the term of a special counsel of God. In the spirituality of the first chapter of Genesis, one senses God who almost spurs himself on to a work of greater magnitude. It is a question of man who must be created in his image and likeness. d) The end of man. He must dominate over irrational creatures: he must propagate himself by generating other men who are his image and likeness, and therefore of God (cf. Gen. 5:3). The elevation to a supernatural end appears clearly in the second narrative of the creation of man. e) The original goodness of creatures. "God saw that it was well made": this is the refrain for each of the works of the six days. Therefore the present malice that is found in them does not come from God.

II. SECOND NARRATIVE

As for the second narrative (Gen. 1:4-10), the strongly anthropomorphic character of this passage, the way it begins: "When the Lord God made the earth..." so similar to the Babylonian account. Eudma elif, words that reproduce Sumerian terms, distinguish it clearly from the preceding chapter. And so what do we have in this narrative? The answer can perhaps come from the solution of the literary composition of all these chapters of Genesis, which narrate the very earliest events of humanity (Gen. 2-11). Moses, in composing these chapters, undoubtedly made use of very ancient documents and traditions, which could have pivoted on Sumerian and Babylonian culture (Abraham was a native of that region). In them one indeed senses the popular and simple style, full of powerful anthropomorphisms. Moses therefore found a narrative of the first events of humanity: the creation of man, the earthly Paradise, the placing of man in it, the formation of woman. Such a narrative was quite useful for Moses, but still incomplete: the preceding history was missing. Then, with the genius that he was, enlightened by God, he narrated in the first chapter, in a wholly personal style, the creation of the universe. For the requirements of such an account he inserted into it the creation of man and woman, presenting it with the conciseness and spirituality proper to the context.

Pietro Bocciaccio