ESAMERON. - A technical term indicating the biblical narrative (Gen 1–2:3) of the work of creation, presented as having taken place in six days (ἕξ = "six," ἡμέρα = "day"). Strictly speaking, it would therefore exclude the issues arising from the so-called second narrative of creation, found in Gen 2:4–19, since in this second narrative there is no mention of a development over six days. However, since these two accounts are closely related (certainly in their objective content, if not in their sources and style), their relationship must at least be considered.
I. FIRST NARRATIVE
From a stylistic point of view, there is no doubt that Gen 1–2:3 is clearly distinct from the subsequent Genesis narratives. The first impression received is one of spirituality (a way of conceiving the Divinity and His operation in an immaterial manner) and of the highest artistry.Spirituality, because while the following narratives are filled with notable anthropomorphisms of the Divinity, in this first passage there is none of this. The Divinity creates, produces, and orders with a single omniferous command from His mouth (the phrase "and God said" recurs ten times in twenty verses). The execution of individual works is not represented as the result of a direct operation of God, but either as an immediate consequence of a command or as the effect of a virtue communicated to secondary causes.
The artistry lies in the manner of narration according to a given literary scheme that, for particular purposes, dispenses with a strictly historical exposition in all its elements. It is evident: 1) from the parallelism of the works. The six days are preceded by the creation proper. This is followed by the opus distinctionis in the first three days. In these, one notes how the author’s intention is to describe the production of the environment (= as it were, the essential and immovable parts of a building). Each day one work, on the third day two works. In the following three days, the opus ornatus is described (= as it were, the movable and accessory parts of a house). Each day one work, on the third (= sixth) day two works. - 2) From the parallelism of forms, in which there is a constant and repeated scheme for describing the individual works of God: a) God said; b) let there be; c) it was so; d) execution; e) naming; f) blessing; g) it was good; h) day. - 3) From the use of the number seven in the arrangement of the narrative: six days of divine work, one day of divine rest.
These considerations, especially regarding the artistic nature, open the way to the fundamental problem: the interpretation of this account. What is to be understood in it?
As in all such matters, there are those who deny any historicity to the account, and those who see in it the exact development of the formation of the world. It is not possible here to examine individual positions. The historicity of the account, according to Catholic doctrine, must be upheld and properly interpreted. The ancients, unaware of modern cosmogony, interpreted the formulas of the account very rigidly (concordist theory). Even today, there are those who, precisely on the basis of modern scientific data, find a wonderful 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, serious difficulties remain in accepting this neo-concordist theory. For example, although the Biblical Commission allows the interpretation of "day" as "epoch," it seems evident that the term "day" in the Mosaic narrative must be considered as a space of 24 hours. The best position appears to be that which upholds the following principles:
1) The Mosaic account and the data of the sciences operate on two completely distinct but not contradictory planes. Moses did not intend to narrate the intimate nature and formation of the universe (it would not have been understood!), but using the contemporary knowledge, he drew a picture with eminently religious overtones (above all, the teaching of the weekly work and the sabbath rest).
2) The Mosaic account is historical, inasmuch as everything narrated is indeed the work of God, either directly (first creation, life) or indirectly (the product of forces communicated to secondary causes, which product, according to the well-known biblical concept, is traced directly back to God).
3) The Mosaic account is fragmentary. The author selected only certain interventions of God in the creation and formation of the universe, which could provide a more appropriate religious or apologetic lesson.
4) The Mosaic account is to be interpreted in light of the physical notions of that time, as they appear in other biblical documents (especially Psalms and Job). For example, the conception of the firmament that separates the upper waters from the lower.
5) The Mosaic account, as stated above, is an artistic elaboration, by which it is intended to present God preparing a dwelling for man, who came last but is first in dignity. One sees why God creates: but all is still disorder; behold, He sets to work to order the room. He begins by making light to see by (1st day). Then follows the arrangement of the fixed, immovable parts (at least as conceived): hence the separation of the upper waters from the lower (2nd day), the separation of the sea from the land = the production of plants, which enjoy a certain immobility (3rd day). In the second series of works, there is the ornamentation with things conceived as movable: the sun, moon, and stars that traverse the sky (4th day), the birds and fish (5th day), the animals of the dry land and man (6th day).
6) The Mosaic account contains no falsehood. This could be found in two things: a) in the succession of works in a manner entirely contrary to modern cosmogony; b) in conceiving God’s intervention in six days of 24 hours. Regarding a), it should be noted that the inversion of order does not constitute falsehood regarding the objectivity of the account when the artistic intention of the author is evident from the circumstances, since then the point of view is different, when, humanly speaking, a different knowledge was not possible from that of the contemporary. It should be remembered that God, from Whose sole Revelation one could know what happened before man, had no intention of teaching notions of physics, geology, etc., but used the common manner of speaking; just as even a modern scientist can speak without impropriety of the sun rising and setting. Regarding b), it must not be forgotten that one of the purposes of Moses is to inculcate the weekly work and the sabbath rest. He therefore presents God as a model of the worker. God works for six days, on the seventh He rests. This work of God is pure anthropomorphism: God created all things with a single, most simple act of His will, which exists from eternity. Now, granted the legitimacy of such anthropomorphism, the author went further and extended it to the institution of the generous week.
The Mosaic account aims to affirm a special theological teaching. Indeed, it teaches: a) the purest monotheism. Everything that the Jews will see the Egyptians and Canaanite peoples worship (sun, moon, animals, plants, etc.) are merely creatures: the one true God has produced them; they do not deserve 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 end of a special counsel of God. In the spirituality of the first chapter of Genesis, one senses God as if urging Himself toward a work of greater magnitude. It is a matter of man, who is to be created in His image and likeness. d) The end of man. He is to have dominion over irrational creatures: he is to propagate himself by begetting other men who are in His image and likeness, and thus of God (cf. Gen. 5:3). The elevation to the supernatural end appears clearly in the second narrative of the creation of man. e) The original goodness of creatures. “And God saw that it was good”: this is the refrain after each of the works of the six days. Therefore, the present malice found in them does not come from God.
The Second Narrative. — As for the second narrative (Gen. 2:4–19), the strongly anthropomorphic style of this passage, the manner in which it begins: “When the Lord God made the earth...” so similar to the Babylonian Eufratean account, with its vocabulary reproducing symbolic terms, clearly distinguishes it from the preceding chapter. So what does this narrative contain? The answer may perhaps come from the solution to the literary composition of all these chapters of Genesis, which narrate the very first events of humanity (Gen. 2–11). Moses, in composing these chapters, undoubtedly made use of extremely ancient documents and traditions, which may have originated from Babylon (We have now come from that region). In them one senses precisely 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 placement of man in it, the formation of woman. Such a narrative was very useful to Moses, but still incomplete: the preceding history was lacking. Then, as the genius he was, enlightened by God, he narrated in the first chapter in a completely personal style the creation of the universe. To meet the requirements of this account, he inserted the creation of man and woman, presenting it with the conciseness and spirituality proper to the context.