ESAMERONE. – A technical term denoting the biblical account (Gen. 1–2:3) of the work of creation, presented as having taken place over six days (ἡξ. = “six,” ἡμέρα = “day”). Strictly speaking, therefore, it would exclude the questions arising from the so-called second account of creation, found in Gen. 2:4–19, since this second account contains no reference to a development over six days. Since, however, these two accounts are closely related (certainly objectively, even if not in terms of sources and style), their relationship must at least be outlined.
I. FIRST NARRATIVE
From the stylistic point of view, there is no doubt that Gen. 1–2, 3 must be clearly distinguished from the subsequent narratives of Genesis. The first impression one receives is that of a very lofty spirituality (a way of conceiving the Divinity and his activity in immaterial terms) and of a very high art.Spirituality, because whereas the following narratives move amid notable anthropomorphisms of the Divinity, in this first passage there is nothing of the kind. The Divinity creates, produces, and orders by a single omnipotent command of his mouth (the form wojín'mer, “and he said,” recurs no fewer than 10 times within 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 art lies in the manner of narrating according to a given literary schema which, for particular purposes, dispenses with an exposition that is strictly historical in all its elements. It emerges: 1) from the parallelism of the works. The six days are preceded by creation properly so called. This is followed by the opus distinctionis during the first three days. In these, the author’s intention is seen to be the description of the production of the environment (= almost the essential and immovable parts of a building). One work each day, two works on the third day. During the three following days, the opus ornatus is described (= almost the movable and accessory parts of a house). One work each day, two works on the third (= sixth) day. — 2) From the parallelism of the forms, in which there is a constant and repeated schema for describing God’s individual works: a) God said; b) let there be; c) it happened; d) execution; e) name; f) blessing; g) something good; h) day. — 3) From the use of the number 7 in the arrangement of the narrative: six days of divine work, one day of divine rest.
These considerations, especially those concerning its artistic character, open the way to the fundamental problem: the interpretation of this narrative. What is to be held concerning it?
As in all questions of this kind, some deny all historicity to the narrative, while others wish to see in it an exact account of the formation of the world. It is not possible here to examine the individual positions. According to Catholic doctrine, the historicity of the narrative must be upheld and correctly interpreted. The ancients, ignorant of modern cosmogony, interpreted the formulas of the narrative very rigidly (the concordist theory). Even today there are those who, precisely on the basis of modern scientific data, find a marvellous agreement between the Mosaic narrative and the sciences (e.g., G. Armellini, Cosmogonia moderna e cosmogonia mosaica, in Studium, 42 [1946], pp. 152–56).
Serious difficulties nevertheless remain in accepting this neo-concordist theory. For example, although the Biblical Commission leaves open the possibility of interpreting “day” as “epoch,” it seems evident that the term “day” in the Mosaic narrative must be understood as a period of 24 hours. The best position seems to be that which maintains the following principles:
1) The Mosaic narrative and the data of the sciences operate on two completely distinct, though not contradictory, planes. Moses did not intend to narrate the intimate nature and formation of the universe (he would not have been understood!), but, using the knowledge of his time, he traced a picture with eminently religious purposes (above all, the teaching concerning weekly work and Sabbath rest).
2) The Mosaic narrative is historical, insofar as everything narrated is in fact the work of God, either directly (the first creation, life) or indirectly (the product of forces communicated to secondary causes, which product, according to the Bible’s familiar conception, is attributed directly to God).
3) The Mosaic narrative is fragmentary. The author selected only certain interventions of God in the creation and formation of the universe, those which could provide 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 these appear in other biblical documents (especially the Psalms and Job). Thus, for example, the conception of the firmament separating the upper waters from the lower waters.
5) The Mosaic narrative is, as stated above, an artistic elaboration by which God is presented as preparing a dwelling for man, the last to arrive but the first in dignity. God is therefore seen creating; but everything is still in disorder: behold him at work arranging the room. He begins by making the light in order to see (the first day). Then follows the arrangement of the fixed, immovable parts (or at least those conceived as such): hence the separation of the upper waters from the lower waters (the second day), the separation of the sea from the land, and the production of plants, which enjoy a certain immobility (the third day). In the second series of works, ornamentation is introduced through things conceived as movable: the sun, the moon, and the stars that traverse the sky (the fourth day), the birds and the fish (the fifth day), and the animals of the dry land and man (the sixth day).
6) The Mosaic narrative contains no falsehood. This might be alleged on two grounds: a) the succession of the works, in a manner entirely contrary to modern cosmogony; b) the conception of God’s intervention as taking place over six 24-hour days. With regard to a), it should be noted that a reversal of the order does not constitute falsehood concerning the objectivity of the narrative when the circumstances reveal the author’s artistic intention, since the point of view is then different from that in which, humanly speaking, no knowledge other than that of the time was possible. Let it be remembered that God, from whose revelation alone what occurred before man could be known, did not intend to teach notions of physics, geology, and so forth, but made use of the common way of speaking; just as a modern scientist too may speak, without impropriety, of the rising and setting of the sun. With regard to b), one must not forget that one of Moses’ purposes is to inculcate the working week and Sabbath rest. He therefore presents God as the model of the worker. God works for six days and rests on the seventh. This work of God is a pure anthropomorphism: God created all things by the simplest act of his will, which exists ob aeterna. Now, once the legitimacy of using such an anthropomorphism is admitted, the author went further and completed it until the constitution of the Genesis week.
7) The Mosaic narrative has as its purpose the affirmation of a particular theological teaching. It teaches, in fact: a) the purest monotheism. Everything that the Jews could see being worshipped by the Egyptians and the Canaanite peoples (the sun, moon, animals, plants, etc.) consists of simple creatures: the one true God produced them; they do not deserve divine worship. b) Creation from nothing. “In the beginning...” absolutely, that is, before every creature, and therefore from nothing! c) The value and dignity of man. He is the object of a special deliberation of God. In the spirituality of the first chapter of Genesis, one senses God almost urging himself on to a work of greater importance. It concerns man, who is to be created in his image and likeness. d) Man’s purpose. He must rule over irrational creatures; he must propagate himself by generating other men who are his image and likeness, and therefore God’s (cf. Gen. 5, 3). His elevation to the supernatural end appears clearly in the second narrative of the creation of man. e) The original goodness of creatures. “God saw that it was good”: this is the refrain attached to each of the works of the six days. Consequently, the present evil found in them does not come from God.