H
HagiaSophia
Guest
An in depth article on Genesis by Fr. Stanley Jaki author and lecturer:
"…Another aspect of the hopeless situation in which the exegesis of Genesis 1 found itself around 1900 can be noticed in the Protestant H. Gunkel’s efforts to explain Genesis 1 as a legend. The gist of his explanation was that one had to rely heavily on one’s aesthetic abilities in order to get the true message of a legend. Aesthetic abilities are, however, very difficult to specify. Indeed, Gunkel found in legends, taken for literary genre, a subject that did not lend itself to clear definition.
This fact foreshadowed the gist of the exegesis of Genesis 1 that has prevailed for the past fifty years or so, both in Catholic and in Protestant circles. The exegesis contains many details about Hebrew terms, a great deal of reading into them, and an even greater deal of imprecise discourse. In that exegesis one encounters time and again the claim that, for instance, the author of Genesis 1 used his material “freely.” Such an exegetical handwaving is best left aside even though it involves very prominent figures.
Part of this trend, by now “legendary” in more than one sense, is the wishful thinking about an epistemology-free exegesis. Its champions remain blissfully unaware of the fact that any text which is to be understood becomes thereby an epistemological text. For episteme means understanding, nothing more and nothing less. That episteme can be had without rules will remain an ideal only for those, not a few in these days of deconstructionism, who hold high the idea of an unruly understanding. With them no debate is possible. All they want is the opportunity to pocket rebates to no end for having paid nothing at all.
But even the champions of Genesis 1 as a legend must come to terms in the end with the fact that Genesis 1 is about a real universe. Otherwise Genesis 1 is not about the genesis of everything, but the occasion to generate idle speculations that can only bring discredit to that easily unique chapter.
Genesis 1 is certainly unique inasmuch as in the Bible, which for the most part is either narrative or exhortational, it is a particularly didactic treatise, with an almost scholastic touch. The expression “scholastic” was first used in this connection by that memorable Catholic modernist, Alfred Loisy, who certainly wished it to be otherwise. Genesis 1 also combines three messages in a single recital or form, a further proof of the unusual literary mastery it embodies.
One message, and possibly the chief message, is about the respect due to the Sabbath. It is well to recall that the observance of the Sabbath was a standing or falling proposition throughout the Old Testament. It was that observance that set aside the Jewish week from the equally seven-day weeks of neighboring cultures. Throughout the Old Testament, faithfulness to ritual observance was a chief means of preserving the Jewish people as a depository of revelation. This faithfulness was particularly threatened in the Babylonian captivity and through a total lack of Jewish rule in the Holy Land proper at the same time.
Genesis 1, as composed in those terms, can therefore be taken for a renewed emphasis on the precept that Jews had to separate themselves, especially on weekends, from the careening and carousing Babylonian and Canaanite crowds. This didactic purpose could powerfully be achieved by portraying God as one who himself rested on the seventh day. This in turn necessitated the presentation of God as one who had done a six-day work. With that picture of God who worked for six days and rested on the seventh the Jews were given a pattern to follow, a pattern supreme in two respects. The work was done by God himself, and the work in itself was the greatest conceivable work, the making of the universe. Additional appeal of the pattern rested in the special place accorded in that work to man himself….”
ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/jaki.htm
"…Another aspect of the hopeless situation in which the exegesis of Genesis 1 found itself around 1900 can be noticed in the Protestant H. Gunkel’s efforts to explain Genesis 1 as a legend. The gist of his explanation was that one had to rely heavily on one’s aesthetic abilities in order to get the true message of a legend. Aesthetic abilities are, however, very difficult to specify. Indeed, Gunkel found in legends, taken for literary genre, a subject that did not lend itself to clear definition.
This fact foreshadowed the gist of the exegesis of Genesis 1 that has prevailed for the past fifty years or so, both in Catholic and in Protestant circles. The exegesis contains many details about Hebrew terms, a great deal of reading into them, and an even greater deal of imprecise discourse. In that exegesis one encounters time and again the claim that, for instance, the author of Genesis 1 used his material “freely.” Such an exegetical handwaving is best left aside even though it involves very prominent figures.
Part of this trend, by now “legendary” in more than one sense, is the wishful thinking about an epistemology-free exegesis. Its champions remain blissfully unaware of the fact that any text which is to be understood becomes thereby an epistemological text. For episteme means understanding, nothing more and nothing less. That episteme can be had without rules will remain an ideal only for those, not a few in these days of deconstructionism, who hold high the idea of an unruly understanding. With them no debate is possible. All they want is the opportunity to pocket rebates to no end for having paid nothing at all.
But even the champions of Genesis 1 as a legend must come to terms in the end with the fact that Genesis 1 is about a real universe. Otherwise Genesis 1 is not about the genesis of everything, but the occasion to generate idle speculations that can only bring discredit to that easily unique chapter.
Genesis 1 is certainly unique inasmuch as in the Bible, which for the most part is either narrative or exhortational, it is a particularly didactic treatise, with an almost scholastic touch. The expression “scholastic” was first used in this connection by that memorable Catholic modernist, Alfred Loisy, who certainly wished it to be otherwise. Genesis 1 also combines three messages in a single recital or form, a further proof of the unusual literary mastery it embodies.
One message, and possibly the chief message, is about the respect due to the Sabbath. It is well to recall that the observance of the Sabbath was a standing or falling proposition throughout the Old Testament. It was that observance that set aside the Jewish week from the equally seven-day weeks of neighboring cultures. Throughout the Old Testament, faithfulness to ritual observance was a chief means of preserving the Jewish people as a depository of revelation. This faithfulness was particularly threatened in the Babylonian captivity and through a total lack of Jewish rule in the Holy Land proper at the same time.
Genesis 1, as composed in those terms, can therefore be taken for a renewed emphasis on the precept that Jews had to separate themselves, especially on weekends, from the careening and carousing Babylonian and Canaanite crowds. This didactic purpose could powerfully be achieved by portraying God as one who himself rested on the seventh day. This in turn necessitated the presentation of God as one who had done a six-day work. With that picture of God who worked for six days and rested on the seventh the Jews were given a pattern to follow, a pattern supreme in two respects. The work was done by God himself, and the work in itself was the greatest conceivable work, the making of the universe. Additional appeal of the pattern rested in the special place accorded in that work to man himself….”
ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/jaki.htm