Greetings Halcon,
You ask,
As a person who has faith in the scriptures, how should I approach this subject?
What I have written will not answer the question of whether the six days of creation are literal days or not. My paper is concerned with explicating how the six day account of creation known as the Hexaemeron is structured. The need to relate my findings comes from the fact that scholars regularly assume an alternative narrative structure which, although presented as evidencing “powerful symmetry” and “harmonious balance” to students, has in fact already been recognized by scholars themselves to have significant flaws for more than a hundred years. Yet because of entrenched assumptions on what the text necessarily means, scholars have preferred to retain the admittedly flawed narrative structure, ascribe the obvious incongruencies to a complex literary prehistory of mismashed creation stories and continue on as if everything were fine with the structure they have assumed. There is no questioning of the validity of the narrative structure itself.
And so my own approach begins with nothing more than the seemingly crazy idea that the author, whether inspired or not, intended to produce something that was intelligible to his readers. And so, the first thing I want to know is how the text’s earliest readers understood it. True, this does not necessarily mean that what these readers perceived is what the author intended, but it does provide one with a more emic understanding of the text from within the religious tradition. And then I ask, “Does the reader make a legitimate observation about what the author wrote (exegesis) or is the reader imposing their own ideas onto the text (eisegesis)?”
Now the first reader I have in mind is the Judean writer of the pseudepigraphal work known now as Jubilees. This writer gives the earliest exposition of the Hexaemeron and so you would think that scholars would be interested in what this reader has to say which might illuminate Genesis 1. But alas, they don’t. Why? Because their methodology has already led them to conclude what Genesis 1 must mean. They do not leave the question open as they approach Jubilees. And so when scholars do discuss what Jubilees says, they are forced to characterize its reading of Genesis 1 as eisegetical since it clashes with their preconceived views on what Genesis 1 means.
For example, Jubilees explicates the number of works of the Hexaemeron as twenty-two. Scholars on the other hand speak of “eight creative acts.” Scholars make their identification of these eight creative acts based on the eight times wayyōʾmer ʾĕlōhîm (“and Elohim said”) appears in the text along with a volitional verb, e.g., “Let there be X.” This identification is then ascribed with a certain significance which in turn leads scholars to disregard the number of twenty-two works as an invention of the author of Jubilees,
The writer of Jubilees has reworked Genesis’ eight acts of creation into 22 because this harmonizes with his larger purpose of stressing the sabbath and its significance in God’s universe and plan.
— James C. VanderKam, “Genesis 1 in Jubilees 2,” Dead Sea Discoveries 1/3 (1994): 318.
Because the eight creative acts have already been assumed with a certain significance by VanderKam beforehand, it never occurs to him that the twenty-two works may in fact be a feature of the Hexameron which the author of Jubilees has simply found to be serviceable to the point he wishes to make. And indeed, the fact that the twenty-two works are readily identifiable in the text of Genesis 1 itself speaks against VanderKam’s characterization of the situation here. And VanderKam should have understood this given the fact that he himself elsewhere states, “The relation of Jubilees to Genesis–Exodus is not as a replacement but as a guide, as a means of helping the reader derive the correct message from the biblical material and ensuring that the wrong conclusions were not drawn from it” (James C. VanderKam, Jubilees: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees 1–21, Vol. I, ed. Sidnie White Crawford (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2018), 39). So here is a clear example of how a scholar’s preconceptions stand in the way of considering a legitimate observation made by an ancient reader.
Now at this point you may be thinking, “Well you have made a case for at least considering Jubilees’ twenty-two works of creation, and that's all well and good, but then how is one to understand the eight creative acts identified by scholars based on, not a secondary source such as Jubilees as you have done, but on the phrase ‘and Elohim said’ along with a volitional verb in the very text of the Hexaemeron itself.” And here I would say, to quote myself from my paper,
After the six days, the next most important feature of the text which contributes to the structure is the formula wayyōʾmer ʾĕlōhîm “and Elohim said.” This formula occurs nine times in the text with at least one instance appearing in each day (vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 29). It is important to observe that this formula is not only used at the start of a day nor only in connection with a creative pronouncement. Thus, one finds the formula is used in the middle of day one to introduce a creative pronouncement after the initial creation of the heavens and the earth (v. 3). The formula is also found in the middle of the third and sixth days to introduce additional creative pronouncements in those days (vv. 11, 26). Finally, the formula is found in the middle of the sixth day to introduce a proclamation concerning a provision of food (v. 29). Therefore in four of its nine occurrences (44%) the phrase is not used by the author to initiate the start of a new day. If the phrase is not intended to initiate the start of a new day, what does the author intend by its use?
As is clear from the wayyiqṭōl verb form found in the formula, its use is first and foremost to be sought within the “backbone” of the narrative. Here it may be noted that the first occurrence of the formula in v. 3 also constitutes the author’s first use of a wayyiqṭōl verb in the narrative. This, when viewed in conjunction with its repeated use throughout the narrative, establishes the formula as in fact the main constituent of the narrative’s backbone. The first occurrence in v. 3 is preceded by a description of the earth as tōhû wābōhû “a barren waste” in v. 2 after its initial creation in v. 1. The formula’s use in v. 3 is therefore to be understood as a result clause which relates the response taken to address this situation. Yet this response does not simply end with the formula in v. 3, but extends through the narrative to the other occurrences of this formula, i.e., “So Elohim said” (v. 3) … “Then Elohim said” (v. 6), etc. In this way, the formula is used by the author to relate the individual steps taken to bring the earth into a habitable state. Therefore, after its initial occurrence in v. 3, the formula also serves as an indicator of subdivisions within the following days. While this use of the formula as a structuring device is apparently not recognized in either the Masoretic Text or in the Samaritan Pentateuch, two of the manuscripts from the Dead Sea evidence a recognition of this use through their own use of additional vacats.
— Mebaqqer, The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Academia.edu, 2024), 3–4.
So my approach is not to ignore the phrase. My approach is actually to consider all instances of the phrase’s use by the author to understand its significance. And the result of this more holistic analysis of the phrase’s use reveals that scholars are wrong to focus only on those instances where the phrase is followed by a volitional verb and exclude the phrase’s use in v. 29 from a consideration of the author’s intent when using the phrase. Therefore, the observation that there are eight instances of the phrase “and Elohim said” followed by a volitional verb in the text is not in error. The error comes from the incorrect significance which scholars ascribe to this fact.
The foregoing gives some indication of how I have approached the subject. And the results that I obtain leave me with a much clearer narrative structure that 1) does not suffer from the problems found in the narrative structure assumed in scholarship, 2) is concordant with what the author actually wrote, and 3) agrees with the expositions of the most ancient commentators on the text. I would direct you to my paper for a more thorough discussion of the argument for the position I advance and the approach taken to arrive there.
But before closing, I would like to contrast my view with how the narrative structure is discussed in one of the works recommended by PioneerSchmioneer: The New Oxford Annotated Bible (5th ed.). Let me begin with a citation of the relevant parts:
14–19: The correspondence between days one to three and days four to six (1 || 4, 2 || 5, 3 || 6) heightens the symmetry and order of God’s creation. Here, God’s creation of heavenly lights on the fourth day corresponds to creation of light, day, and night on the first.
20–23: The second day featured the dome separating upper and lower oceans; the corresponding fifth day features the creation of birds to fly across the dome and ocean creatures, including sea monsters (Ps 104.25–26). God’s blessing of the swarming creatures (1.22) anticipates a similar blessing that God will give humanity (1.28).
24–30: The third day described creation of land and plants in turn, the corresponding sixth day involves the creation of two types of plant-eating land-dwellers: animals and then humans.
The commentator maintains that there is “correspondence between days one to three and days four to six,” a correspondence which “heightens the symmetry and order of God’s creation.” The commentator then gives the following examples of this correspondence:
“creation of light, day, and night” (Day 1)
“creation of heavenly lights” (Day 4)
“the dome separating upper and lower oceans” (Day 2)
“creation of birds to fly across the dome and ocean creatures” (Day 5)
“creation of land and plants” (Day 3)
“creation of two types of plant-eating land-dwellers: animals and then humans” (Day 6)
These are the examples of correspondence which the commentator gives that are supposed to heighten “the symmetry and order of God’s creation.” But is that what these examples do? Are these correspondences actually found in the text?
The commentator speaks of “creation of light, day, and night” on day one. Yet “day” is not something created in addition to light, but, according v. 5, is what light is called. “light” and “day” are thus actually the same thing. The same verse also shows that darkness is called night. Why does the commentator not mention darkness along with night as he mentions light along with day? Who knows. What does this say about the items the commentator is putting forth for the proposed correspondence? But let’s ignore the previous points and just say “creation of light” and “creation of heavenly lights” are the correspondence. What is the nature of the correspondence? We are not told. It is just left for the reader to infer.
The commentator speaks of “the dome separating upper and lower oceans” on day two and “creation of birds to fly across the dome and ocean creatures” on day five. But the “lower ocean” is a phrase of the commentator. The text actually calls these “the waters that were under the dome” (v. 7) which are not gathered together and called “seas” until day three (v. 10). The commentator’s verbiage therefore artificially creates a correspondence here by obscuring this fact. Also, why should birds flying “across the dome” be viewed as more significant to the author for correspondence than “God set [the lights] in the dome of the sky” (v. 17)? This is why it is important to pin down the precise nature of the correspondences instead of leaving things vague for the reader to infer.
The commentator speaks of “creation of land and plants” on day three as corresponding with “creation of two types of plant-eating land-dwellers: animals and then humans” on day six. But the text states “to every bird of the air … I have given every green plant for food” (v. 30). Thus the text itself includes “birds” created on day five in the provision of food as well. This again shows a problem with the commentator’s correspondence. And again, even if we ignore this problem, what is the nature of the correspondence between the two days? Yet a third time we are not told. It is just left for the reader to infer.
Now I would ask you to compare what was just presented above to the outline and diagram of the narrative structure of the Hexaemeron which I have produced and I think you will find a quite stark contrast. So in your approach you are of course free to utilize the narrative structure assumed by scholars which in fact ignores the text and leaves it in disarray all while telling you how it heightens “the symmetry and order of God’s creation.” You will be in good company since it is assumed by everyone. But I for my part will continue to utilize the narrative structure which I have recovered to understand Genesis 1 since no refutation of it has been forthcoming, it evidences more concrete and clearer correspondences, it explains how ancient interpreters read the text as well and, perhaps most important, it does not leave me in a state of evident confusion such as this:
The improbability that a disposition of the cosmogony in eight works should have obtained currency in Hebrew circles without an attempt to bring it into some relation with a sacred number has been urged in favour of the originality of the present setting (Holzinger, 23 f.). That argument might be turned the other way for the very fact that the number 8 has been retained in spite of its apparent arbitrariness suggests that it had some traditional authority behind it. Other objections to the originality of the present scheme are: (a) the juxtaposition of two entirely dissimilar works under the third day (b) the separation of two closely related works on the second and third days; (c) the alternation of day and night introduced before the existence of the planets by which their sequence is regulated (thus far Di. 15), and (d) the unnatural order of the fourth and fifth works (plants before heavenly bodies). These objections are not all of equal weight and explanations more or less plausible have been given of all of them. But on the whole the evidence seems to warrant the conclusions that the series of works and the series of days are fundamentally incongruous, that the latter has been superimposed on the former during the Heb. development of the cosmogony, that this change is responsible for some of the irregularities of the disposition, and that it was introduced certainly not later than P, and in all probability long before his time.
— John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; New York, N.Y.: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 10.
So I will leave it up to you to decide what you think is the best approach for you. Anyways, have a nice day.
