In the beginning ... : Genesis I-III

Citation preview

In the Beginning Genesis l-lll School of Theology at Claremont 1 1001 1388922

\A

Jean Danielou, S.J.

BS

1235.2 D313

Preface by Gerard S. Sloyan

CHALLENGE BOOK

SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY AT CLAREMONT California

' -t

- +

«

ii Ί

I

Li

3 I

i.1 1 1

In the Beginning . Genesis I— III

O T H E R B O O K S B Y JEAN D A N IE L O U The Dead Sea Scrolls and Primitive Christianity Holy Pagans o f the Old Testament Primitive Christian Symbols The Scandal o f Truth

In the Beginning

•

·

Genesis I— III by JEAN DANIELOU

with a Foreword by G E R A R D S. SL OY A N

Bs )Z 3S. X J )S I3

A CHALLENGE B O O K H ELI CO N—B A L T I M O R E —DUBLIN

Helicon Press, Inc. 1X20 N . C alvert Street Baltimore, Maryland 21202

Helicon Limited 53 Capel Street D ublin 1, Ireland

Originally published in French under the title A u Commencement b y Editions du Seuil, Paris, 1962

Translated from the French by Julien L . R an dolf Library o f Congress Catalog Card Num ber 64:16130 N ih il Obstat:

Imprimatur:

Carroll E . Satterfield Censor Librorum

»{4 Lawrence

Cardinal Shehan Archbishop o f Baltimore M arch 15, 1965

The N ih il Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free o f doctrinal or moral error. N o implication is contained therein that those who have granted the N ih il Obstat and Imprimatur agree with the opinions expressed.

Copyright © English translation 1965 b y Helicon Press, Inc.

PRINTED IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND B Y CAHILL &

COM PAN Y LIMITED DUBLIN

A CAT CAN look at a king, but one does not “ introduce” Pere Danielou. One expresses gratitude that this monograph o f his on the early chapters o f Genesis has been made available to English language readers. T w o decades ago the Catholic community in this country was almost without a popular literature on the biblical revelation, done in a critical spirit. The lack has since been remedied. This is not to say that a certain fundamentalism inimical to Christian faith does not still prevail in many quarters. It is to be found among the badly catechized o f all ages, including— paradoxically— a few remaining students o f theological seminaries, and other dwellings o f various sizes. W hat every Chanaanite schoolboy knows is, however, more and more being identified with a touching liberality as a “ new finding in Scripture.” Pere Danielou confines himself to a small number o f old findings. He does his reader the important service o f seeing both testaments o f Scripture whole. Instead o f considering the authors o f Genesis i - i i i

In the Beginning . . .

as culturally imprisoned protagonists o f a cosmogony akin to that o f their Mesopotamian neighbors he sees them as “ new men,” scientific demythologizers who can call a star a star and a moon a celestial orb. Their view is, at the same time, prophetic. They look forward more than they look back. They find the story o f how it was in the beginning worth telling only because o f their postexilic conviction o f how it will be at the end. Their great concern is with the age to come. The mockery o f superstition and animism by the biblical authors is total, so much so that the vanity o f these men could not be wounded more than by the modem charge that they spun unsophisticated yams. You do not, after all, make sport o f the saving power o f snakes and trees and fiery suns, nor pene­ trate the human condition to its psychological depths, and then expect to hear that the fables you have concocted are a stumbling block to rational man. It is a kind o f service, one might have supposed, to point out that all rivalry with the Almighty is folly, that topless towers built at “ the gate o f the gods” are ultimately a stake in confusion. To examine human weakness and sinfulness in depth, to look death in the face, constitute a great theological enterprise. One might have thought so, at least. Because it was such an enterprise, and because the psalmists and Isaia and Ezechiel and the Wisdom writers were equally engaged in it, Pere Danielou examines it on the only terms that suit it, namely

theological terms. He also examines these biblical data—early conceived, if late recorded—in terms o f the key to any theology that takes its meaning from the end rather than the beginning: Jesus Christ, the Lord o f the new creation. G erard Slo yan

Contents Foreword by Gerard S. Sloyan Introduction

13

I. T he C reation of the W orld

II. T he B iblical D octrine III.

T

he

M

ystery

5

of

of

S in

IV. A dam and C hrist V . T he P eoples of the E arth VI. T he T ower of B abel A ppendix : G enesis I—III For Further R eading

M an

27 37

51 63 73 85 95 103

In the Beginning . Genesis I— III

Introduction deals with several themes contained in the first chapters o f Genesis. Elsewhere we have spoken o f the saints o f cosmic religion, Noah, Henoch, and Melchisedech.1 Here the question concerns the creation o f the world and man, as well as the separa­ tion existing among the races. W e undertake this study because, in view o f the problems o f our time, it would seem to have important consequences. And this is w hy we think it necessary to investigate the particular problems which these chapters present. For we must not let these problems prevent us from hearing the message herein contained. The explanation o f these chapters has at first what I call a negative value: that o f eliminating obstacles. It can be said that they are the object, for example, o f sarcasm on the part o f the worldly-wise. How, they ask, do you expect us to believe, we men o f the twentieth century, we who belong to the age o f atomic energy, o f planetary exploration, o f evolution, T

h is b o o k

1Cf. Jean Danielou, Holy Pagans of the Old Testament, tr. by Felix Faber (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1957).

that the first woman was made from a rib o f the first man and that all evil in the world came about because she munched on an apple? H ow can you expect us to believe that God created the world in six days, when we know that it was the result o f millions o f years o f evolution? These are old wives’ tales which would no longer be believed today by anyone who had attended public school. I remember having heard Abbe Michonneau say that the alienation from the faith among the working classes was due more to the general feeling o f the incompatibility o f the Bible and Science than to reproaches made to the Church for having neglected the poor o f the world. In these reproaches there was much ignorance. A cultivated Christian knows that it is perfectly possible, in a study o f these texts, to consolidate the most demanding literary criticism and the fullest accep­ tance o f the divine revelations which they contain. But it is still necessary that they be explained to him. Otherwise these texts run the risk o f being scandalous to certain persons, a real stumbling block. There is no opposition whatsoever between the truths revealed in these texts and the truths established by science. But if this elucidation is not made, several contradictions might appear. It is therefore a pressing task to clear the way. Also, the Church has always taught that the text o f the Bible must be explained by those who have authority to do so, for otherwise there could be an erroneous interpretation. When this has been said, and the negative aspect

overcome, what constitutes the revealed contents o f these chapters has an outstanding missionary value because it is the answer to what makes up the essential heresy o f our time. The first chapters o f Genesis are, we think, “ missionary” work. They set up an argument against Chanaanite idolatry, the cult o f false gods, in particular the cult o f the Serpent, magic rites and sacred prostitution. In the face o f this ancient idolatry, they are witnesses to the one true God, creator o f heaven and earth. And they lay the foundations o f the biblical conception o f man—what is man for God; what simply is man—in teaching us that man is created by God to his image, to dominate the world on one hand and to adore God on the other, and that a man who lacks one o f these requisites is not truly a man. N ow this, more than the ancient idolatries, points up modern idolatry par excellence. It is a pretension on the part o f man to be content with himself alone and to acknowledge dependence on nothing. Man who is nothing more than a machine is distorted, and he is lacking the necessary dispositions for adoration. Against this suicide o f modem man, its first message is that man without God is no longer worthy o f the / name man, that a society without God is an inhuman society and that it is not God, but man himself whom we are defending in refusing to accept this distortion. This is the message o f Genesis. From the beginning Genesis places man’s supernatural destiny in the divine plan by showing him taken into Paradise.

But however permanent and yet contemporary this message may be, the inspired authors who wrote these chapters wrote them to the men o f their time and race. They knew, by divine revelation, o f God’s actions to which there was no witness at the beginning o f time. They knew, by divine revelation, what the creation o f humanity entailed, and the spiritual drama which shook it. These events, known by inspiration, were expressed in everyday terms understood by all those who heard them. They also wrote in their own language and with an imagery peculiar to themselves. In this light the Old Testament is a Jewish book and creates a bond between Christians and Jews. But this message belongs to all peoples o f all times. This brings us to the essential mission which the written word, so permanent in its meaning, must bring to the descriptions o f various peoples in successive cultures. To each generation the same task presents itself. Genesis has used descriptions o f the Semitic milieu dating a thousand years before Christ. In the accounts given o f the creation o f man two different types o f illustration are used. When revela­ tion comes to the Greeks it will be expressed in terms familiar to them. Saint Basil devoted all his attention to presenting the story o f creation in terms o f the cosmology o f his time. W e see to what point these chapters o f Genesis, far from constituting an object o f scholarly curiosity, enmesh us in the searching discussions o f our time. This explains w hy we cannot avoid confronting these

problems. They sometimes seem to be surrounded with an attitude which forbids investigation. Dis­ crimination between those revealed truths which we accept completely on faith and those matters brought up by descriptions o f a definite culture is not always easy. A t least there are certain points subject to explanation. And this is what we are attempting to do. Before approaching the different themes o f these chapters, it is necessary to point out several general characteristics which they have in common. To what world do they belong? Exactly where can they be situated? And this in itself has several meanings. There is the problem o f the context o f the civilization whose description they reflect. There is the question o f the order o f reality for which we are striving. Are we dealing with myth, history, or science? The com­ plexity o f the problems posed is quickly grasped; and their importance is also seen. Failing to discover these different schemes, we run the risk either o f reducing an essential part o f revelation to a curious document on the basis o f the development o f religious writing or, inversely, o f considering data which are o f no use today as an essential part o f revelation. It is normal for a great deal o f restraint to exist in this area. The Church has always held firmly that these chapters contain a divine revelation concerning S the origins o f the world and o f man. Exegetes have progressively widened the breach between what depends on revelation and what is in the area o f

description. And a number o f them, struck by the analogies between these biblical accounts and what the ancient religions o f the Near East present, have often minimized what appears as properly revealed. Today these oppositions are things o f the past. It is possible to study these chapters in the light o f the most exacting literary criticism, without the value o f revelation being minimized. It can even be said that the progress o f exegetical studies has given us an understanding o f these chapters which facilitates the discovery o f the value o f permanent truth. This can be explained by saying that these chapters offer a double reference to history, or, more exacdy, that they allow us to discover that the word “ history” can signify two different things. On the one hand, it is possible to situate them historically. The book o f Genesis, like the other books o f the Pentateuch, did not acquire the form which we now read until after the fifth century b . c . This corpus which we call the Old Testament was composed then. It reminds us o f documents o f various ages. The part which interests us comes from two distinct sources. Chapters 2:4 to 4 form a part o f what is known as the Jahwist Code, the draft o f which can be traced back to the ninth century before Christ. The first Chapter (1 to 2:3) belongs to the Priestly Code which is much more recent. The Prologue o f the Old Testament is thus literally one o f the last texts to be drawn up. I am speaking here only o f the literary age o f the texts, not o f the ideas they contain. This age can be

determined with certitude by the same rules which prevail for the literary criticism o f all literatures. For the Old Testament is also literature. It is evident that these documents can be dated historically by the descriptions contained in them. Thus, the cosmological descriptions. The authors o f the O ld Testament shared an idea o f the world which was prevalent in their time and which also evolved even after the documentary age. But, in any case, they showed the earth as a flat surface, supported by pillars which were plunged into the waters o f the substratum and protected by the heavens, a sort o f concave arch, against the waters o f the superstratum. Clearly then, in this case, the inspired authors could only express themselves in the science o f their day. Here lies the answer to those critics whom we mentioned a while ago. And intellectual accomplishment is not necessary in order to ponder this. He is naive who, in defense o f his description o f the universe, ridicules the manner in which man pictured himself three millennia ago, without suspecting that nothing is more changing than the concept o f the cosmos, and that i f Genesis expressed this in our terms, it would have been outdated in half a century. W e can make several analogous remarks con­ cerning these geographical concepts. The map o f the world as pictured in Chapter io o f Genesis is centered in the Near East, extending to the Black Sea on the north, to India on the east, to Ethiopia in the south

and to Spain on the west. The rest o f the world is ignored. And who could not forgive the Old Testament for giving us a false idea o f the Earth, because those who wrote it had not discovered America? The Old Testament brings to light here a certain Near Eastern culture which existed over two millennia before our own. This culture does not belong exclusively to the Hebrews, who shared the ideas o f their neighbors, the Egyptians or Babylonians. They have, in this sense, a mentahty which corresponds to an instant in the evolution o f civilization and to no esection o f humanity. But i f the literary and scientific culture o f the sacred writers who wrote the first chapters o f Genesis is simply that o f men o f their time and represents a moment in the history o f civilization, the truths which they proclaim are not the product o f an evolution o f ideas, but arise from another order which is that o f history, but in a different sense o f the word. What is important to us in the first chapters o f Genesis is that these authors witness the essential happenings o f true history, which is Sacred History. None o f the sacred authors was a witness o f these events. None o f them was present at the creation o f the world. Jahweh himself said to Job, “ Where were you when I laid the foundation o f the world?” They knew o f it because God had revealed it to them. This revelation aims at a historical reality, or better, a reality which inaugurates history and constitutes the world as history. It is not concerned with cosmo-

gonical speculation, as is found in the mythical religions, but with a true revelation. Only the sacred authors unveiled it to men o f their time, using descriptions also found in the cosmogonies. As much must be said for the account o f Paradise and the Fall. T o be in possession o f traditions dating back to Adam would be impossible for the writers who picture these incidents, for what is described is the result o f a revelation made tens o f thousands of* years after the event. However, it is this event which God revealed to the inspired authors and which they described in terms familiar to their own time and place. This is not merely a philosophical doctrine! The very beginnings o f human history are shown to us. This historical character is indigenous to biblical revelation, but in an entirely different sense from historicism. It is essentially a testimony given to the “ mirabilia Dei,” to the great events o f Sacred History. This is also a cosmic history; for the entire universe is involved in God’s works. This is even more apparent i f one studies those Bible accounts which have parallels in the Babylonian, Chanaanite and Egyptian myths. The cultural data are analogous. But within this common culture, the views are radically different. Against the idolatry and polytheism which fill the pagan myths, the biblical writers contrast the great affirmations o f the Abrahamic and Mosaic revelation: the God-creator, the supernatural calling o f man, and original sin. Here again the historical character o f these chapters appears.

If the creation o f the world is an event o f Sacred History, the revelation o f the world’s creation to Moses and to the writers o f Scripture is also an event in Sacred History. Thus we can legitimately see in Genesis the revelation made to Moses, not because he is its ultimate author, but because the content o f the revelation is the same as was given to him. The originality o f the biblical account o f the origins o f man and the world will become more clear still from one last comment. This text is far from being the only one in Scripture which speaks o f creation. The creation theme is a favorite one in the Psalms and sapiential writings.'Psalm 104, which Staerk has called “ a symphony on Genesis,” or the Book o f Job, have only to be read. But already the theme o f Jahweh as creator and sovereign o f the universe holds a considerable place in the writings o f the prophets, and principally in Isaias (40-48). Therefore, in order to bring out the full meaning, we must place the beginning o f Genesis in this context. If these comparisons are made, the fact becomes clear. The prophets call attention to the great works o f God in the creation o f the world and man only to maintain the confidence which Israel must have in the works which he will accomplish in the future for her salvation. This shows that Israel first knows Jahweh as a God who revealed himself to her, who has chosen her, who lives in her, and to whom she is consecrated; for

the God o f Israel is not one among many gods. The national gods are idols. He is the one God, creator o f heaven and earth, creator also o f the nations, but whom the nations ignore. He has manifested his love for Israel by choosing her for a special mission which he set aside for her, a mission not against the nations but in favor o f them. The plan o f the creator o f the universe also involves history; for as he created the world, so is he the master o f history. Israel, therefore, has nothing to fear from the nations. They are a drop o f water in the ocean. God created them, but he can also destroy them. Continuing, we see that the Bible is essentially prophetic. This is what places it in radical opposition to the pagan religions. The latter refer to mythical times where all reality would have preexisted in its archetypes. They show nostalgia for a primitive perfection, a time knowing nothing o f degradation. For the Bible, on the contrary, Paradise concerns not only the past but also the future. W hat God will accomplish is greater than what he has done: “ Do not remember things o f the past. For I will show you new wonders,” says Isaias. For Isaias, creation con­ cerns the future more than the past. The words which he uses apply more to the future. To create character­ izes a manner o f acting which belongs only to the divine, which consists in making something where nothing ever existed. The living God is always the God who can create a being from nothing, give grace where there was sin, life where there was death.

But nothing is more difficult for man than hope. And hope runs through the entire Bible. Nothing is more difficult for man to believe than that grace is more abundant in a world so steeped in misery and wickedness. Thus, to sustain hope in what God can raise up in history, the Bible shows what he is capable o f doing in nature. Since he is faithful to the cosmic covenant, begun on the first day o f creation, so also is he faithful to the historical covenant, made on the first day o f Israel. Psalm 89 states: “ The heavens praise your wonders, O Lord; and your faithfulness is praised in the Assembly o f Saints.” Man is not lost in the infinite reaches. The God who spoke to Abraham, who lived in the Temple, who showed his people the way through the Sea, is he who “ commands the morning and gives dawn its place in the sky.” Cosmic events and historic events are works o f the same God; for far from dissolving history in nature as do the pagan myths, the Bible joins nature to history, but not to a history which comes from materialistic evolution, but to a history which is the plan o f God and o f the eternal salvation o f mankind. Thus, the cosmic covenant prepares and prefigures the Mosaic covenant. In its turn, the Mosaic covenant will experience a cosmic illumination. The object o f the hope o f Israel, o f eschatological hope, is not only in the order o f the history o f Israel or o f human history, but in the order o f cosmic history. W hat is awakened is not only the liberation o f Israel, but a

new heaven and earth. There will be a new creation which will not be a second creation, but the trans- * figuration o f the first. In this way, the account o f Genesis not only recalls the past, but prefigures the future. The sun which rose on the fourth day o f creation is the forerunner o f the sun which will shine on the new creation, in which there will be no sun because the Lamb will be its light. And the radiance o f this new creation will obscure that o f the first, even though God said that “ it was good.” But the first creation was aimed at the promise to Israel; the second will be the perfection o f the second covenant accomplished in Jesus Christ. It will be, as Saint Paul tells us, the result o f the appearance o f the sons o f God, which all creation awaits with an ardent desire. These are the sons o f God whose glory far outshines the cosmos. This is first because the Son o f God, creator o f the cosmos, has regained it by the Incarnation and has brought it into glory by his resurrection. The first sun was the prophetic figure o f the “ sun o f justice” who will forever shine on the transfigured creation. Genesis is not a memory o f the past for us; it directs our hope to future glory.

The Creation of the World chapter o f Genesis was in all likelihood drawn up by a Jewish priest in the fifth century b . c ., an era when, under the encouragement o f the great Esdras, the people o f Israel, who had returned from exile, reorganized themselves and made up the body o f their traditions, the Old Testament. The universalism o f this text, the place which the idea o f creation holds in it, shows that it is subsequent to the second part o f Isaias which had developed these ideas during v the exile. It precedes certain psalms, such as Psalm 104, which are taken from it and which are similar to a refrain in the form o f a prayer o f praise. Also, the place which it holds in the religious calendar, the seven-day division and discourse on the Sabbath, its allusion to feasts which are marked by the passage o f the sun and moon, all these situate us well within the priestly caste o f the N ew Temple. The era in which this text was written was one when humanity was most intelligent. Jaspers makes the fifth century before Christ one o f the turning points in the history o f human thought. A t this time, on the coasts o f the T

he

f ir s t

27

Ionian Sea, the pre-Socratics sought the element from which all things were made: for Anaximenes it was air, and for Thales it was water. The interest in things o f nature was awakening. In many respects, the first chapter o f Genesis mirrors this movement. It presents an interest in the cosmos which we do not find in ancient Israel and which will continue to develop in sapiential literature, in the Book o f Job and the Wisdom o f Solomon. It is also an argument against the myths. However, the answer which it supplies for the mysterious origin o f things is not one o f material evolution, but the free decision o f a Godcreator. This brings us to what makes these pages so important for all time. But first we must be precise in what this actuality does not consist. It is clear already that the description o f the universe which we find here is one o f a Near Eastern mentality. The world is divided into three parts: at the bottom, the abyss o f water which fills the underground regions; at the top, the “ waters which are above the sky” and which keeps it from falling on the earth; and finally, in the middle, the earth with its plants and animals. The heavenly bodies are hung from the sky to light the earth. This structure o f the cosmos is found in parallel passages o f the Old Testament, in Psalm 104 and in the Book o f Job. It is common to all men of this time. In this area, our text depends on the science o f the times. This is perfectly normal. Investigation o f the

physical universe is the realm, par excellence, in which the scientific spirit must exercise itself. W e do not have to rely on the realization o f the authority o f divine revelation, but on the free research o f man. God gave him intelligence so that he would use it. To substitute in the areas which are within this intelligence is equivalent to God’s destruction o f his own work. Our author certainly had no worry as to the order in which he describes creation. The sun is mentioned on the fourth day, whereas night and day were mentioned on the first. In reality, as we shall see, he was otherwise pre­ occupied. He freely used those illustrative terms which pleased him. If we wish to understand what he wanted to do, we must study several comparative elements found in his milieu. This milieu is one o f Oriental, Chanaanite, Babylonian and Egyptian religions which are contemporary with the author. He shares their cosmological descriptions. Where does he differ from them? D o we only have a form o f the cosmogonic myths which we find in these other religions? N ot at all! W hat characterizes these myths are the forces o f nature which are considered as divine personages. Cosmogony, in reality, is a theogony. The primordial chaos, which is the first divinity, emits various forces which constitute a polytheistic universe. Paul Humbert remarked that “ we could not know enough to underline, in Genesis i, the pronounced character o f theological reflection, o f monotheistic references

and the willingness to subdue all the rival forces o f God.” 1 Re-read in this perspective o f antipolytheistic polemic, the text takes on its full meaning. In the Babylonian myths, Tiamat, the primordial ocean, is a goddess over whom Marduk, the god o f light, triumphs. Everything is begun by a war o f the gods. Remains o f this myth appear in certain passages o f the Old Testament as images. Thus, in Isaias (51:9): “ Is it not you who cut Rahab in pieces, who spears the dragon?” or in the Psalms (74:14): “ It is you who crushed the head o f the whale.” H. Gunkel, in his famous book Schopfung und Chaos, has stressed the literary remnants. The sea dragon will become a symbol o f the forces o f evil; for Cyril o f Jerusalem, it is he whose head Christ crushed while standing in Jordan. In Genesis 1, however, every mythical, even literary, trace is removed. Tiamat, says Humbert, “ loses her personality and is nothing more than the primordial ocean.” W e know o f the importance given to the heavenly bodies in the ancient religions. The seven planets were, for the Babylonians in particular, the deities who had their own names and who directed the course o f human affairs. This astrology was to permeate the entire coastal area o f the Near East, and was to be one o f the last forms under which the old paganism persisted. Even when the Gnostics xPaul Humbert, Etudes sur le recit du Paradis et de la Chute dans la Genese, p. 166.

revolt against the tyranny o f the planetary gods, the cosmocratores, evil forces are still evident. The author o f this chapter restricts himself by designating the heavenly bodies simply as “ the stars.” He doesn’t even give their names, remarks Humbert. They are simple lamps hung by God in the heavens to give light to man. They are not considered as dangerous powers and are totally “ demythologized,” reduced to their natural reality. O nly the sun and the moon are mentioned. The sun, R e, was the great god o f the Egyptians. The moon, Astarte, was a Chanaanite goddess. And the position o f Helios in Greek religion and until the last days o f the Empire is well known; and the moon, Hecate, the goddess o f the shades, reigned over the dead. It is quite possible, as Mircea Eliade says, that it was not always the elements o f the world which the ancients adored but, through these hierophantes, the mystery which they presented. The author o f Genesis i appears to us to despiritualize the cosmos too much. He seems to us to be too close to the natural philosophers o f Ionia, who were regarded by pious pagans as atheists. Since it was this divinizing o f the cosmos which was the source o f polytheism, it was imperative to expose it, and to reclaim the sacred for the one transcendent God. There is a certain air, free from all polytheism, which we breathe in Genesis i, a wholesome, liberating air. W e now understand why. The Earth and the Sea are no longer two powerful

deities: the Mother Earth o f all ancient religions, the god Oceanus o f whom Homer speaks. They are depersonalized, “ demythologized,” in a sense defictionalized. “ God called the dry land Earth, and the assembled waters Sea” (Gn 1:10). And with them, all the secondary gods who filled the pagan natural­ istic concept, the gods o f the rivers and mountains, the gods o f springs and oaks, this entire company was dispersed. “ On the fifth day, the great sea monsters,” continues Humbert, “ are no longer the relics o f mythical chaos and a primeval battle o f the gods; « they are animals directly created by God: they have now submitted themselves to him.” Time itself, days and months, no longer draws its sacred character from magic beliefs in good and bad days. The Sabbath, however, is blessed by a formal order o f God. If we are satisfied with this aspect o f the question, the position o f the Jewish writer o f Genesis i would be no different from that o f contemporary Greek philosophers. It would concern, in both cases, the change from a mythological conception o f the world to a scientific one. In fact, if criticism o f mythology is common to both Greek philosophers and Jewish hagiographers, the concepts which they oppose are widely divergent. For the philosophers, what replaces the mythological gods is nature, physics, which is manifested by the various realities o f the world. For the author o f the first Chapter o f Genesis, on the other hand, what replaces the pagan gods is the God-creator, who transcends a world which is o f his

own making. Here is where the actual content o f the chapter appears. It constitutes, at the beginning o f Scripture, a witness to the primacy o f God and to the dependence o f all creation upon him. * This affirmation is stated in the first verse: “ In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Heaven and earth here mean the entire universe. The principle, bereshith, is not only the beginning, but the root beginning o f the universe. As Philo o f Alexandria has already explained, it cannot concern a beginning in time when it concerns the origin o f time itself. But the essential expression is: “ God created.” God here is Elohim, a title which expresses its relationship with the universe, not his particular bond with Abraham’s family. “ Created” is bara in Hebrew; this word is o f particular interest.2 The Old Testament uses it only when referring to God and it therefore belongs to a sacred vocabulary. It is not a profane analogy such as “ to manufacture” or “ to construct.” W hat is emphasized by its use is a completely divine manner o f acting. The word bara then designates those things which only God can accomplish, works truly divine. This is o f prime importance. The entire Bible will simply be a development o f it, the object o f which is to testify that if there are works which challenge man, such as understanding the universe, putting it into her service, if man must exercise freely his faculties in the 2Cf. Paul Humbert, “ Emploi et portae du verbe bara dans l’Ancien Testament,” in Theologische Zeitschrift, 1947, pp. 401 ff.

world, this action has its limits because there are things which are totally beyond his capabilities. Man cannot, by his own means, attain salvation. Only God saves. Again, he cannot create by his own power. O nly God creates. The entire Bible is a witness to these divine actions and this is the keynote o f Sacred History. But the object o f the first chapter is to show us that the first o f these divine works is the creation o f the world. This is o f the greatest importance, as von Rad, the great German exegete, has shown. Israel first en­ countered God through his intervention in her history. Jahweh first appeared to her as her own God, the God o f the Covenant who had chosen her for his people. “ The ancient Jahwist Israelite faith bases itself on determined historical experiences, exclusively as a faith o f salvation.” 3The divine works for Israel are primarily the interventions o f God in history. Here, the strength o f Jahweh shows itself. And, little by little, Israel discovers that her God is also the God o f the universe, that his sovereignty encompasses everything, that he is the master o f cosmic forces and that he does things in aw ay which is most pleasing to him. This revelation shines forth principally in the second part o f Isaias. Here the divine “ I” affirms itself in the fullness o f his sovereignty, scattering the fears o f man in the face o f cosmic forces, since the God who chose and 3Cf. Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, tr. by D. M. G. Stalker (London, 1962), pp. 139 ff.

protects Israel is supreme master o f those forces which mean nothing to him. Here we reach the essential originality o f the chapter, the truly revealed content. If it describes the cosmos, it is not the world itself which interests our author; the emphasis is placed on each element as the work o f God. The author looks at the world from a point o f view proper to his own time. He examines it from different aspects and each o f these is recognized as created by God. After that, the inventory is complete. He is sure that all was created by God. Herein lies the value o f the enumerative process. Psalm 104 also reiterates this. The psalmist tries with inexpressible jo y, in reference to each creature, to glorify the omnipotence o f the creator. The entire world renders homage to him who created it. It is a cosmic liturgy o f thanksgiving. But i f the entire world gives testimony to God, God, in his turn, gives testimony to the world. He acknowledges it as his work, declaring it good. He does not disown it. A ll the dignity o f creation is affirmed at one time. After having dispelled all the falsities o f idolatry which creatures overestimated in making them equal to the Creator, for which Saint Paul reproached the pagans in the Epistle to the Romans, our author defends creation against those who would deface it. The world is good and holy as the w ork o f a good and holy God. It commands our respect. Placed in existence by the free will of God it has value and lastingness, and i f the existence

which is the world’s is an existence which takes its being from another, it is nevertheless a real existence, a participation in the being o f God who radically distinguishes it from himself and makes it intimately dependent on him.

The Biblical Doctrine of Man It is a strange fact that man is both so familiar with and so mysterious to himself. From his very begin­ ning, he questions his nature, his origins, and his destiny. Ancient paganism answered this threefold question by myths, in which man, using ideal archetypes, extended the permanent parts o f his nature. Modern times have substituted a scientific approach for this mythical one; through anthropology and the social sciences, we attempt to fathom the ultimate obscurity o f man’s pre-history, the substrata o f his psychological make-up, and to envision his possible future. But this has its limits beyond which no human eye can penetrate. There is an essential part o f man which is cloaked in mystery and which only revelation can make known to us. This con­ stitutes the incomparable value o f the second and third chapters o f Genesis. These chapters answer the threefold question mentioned above. They show us what man’s nature is, by teaching us that he is created in the image o f

God, which is to say that he is neither a god, as the myths made him out to be, nor a product o f nature, as the evolutionists saw him, but that he transcends nature and at the same time is transcended by God. They show us what the origins o f man are: not a heavenly being fallen into the material world, nor an animal acquiring intelligence little by little, but a spiritual creature at the heart o f material creation. These chapters show us the destiny o f man: not to recover the god-like being he would have been by nature nor, by transforming the material conditions o f his existence, to have faith in himself alone, but 1to be placed by God, through a free gift, in the sphere , o f divine life, Paradise. This message is primarily missionary in its univer­ sality, dealing with man as he actually is. Humanity, not Israel, is the main point. This is the secret lost in transmission, about which Maurice de Guerin said that the gods had hidden it somewhere: God, who alone possesses it, unveils it to a certain few so that they may make it known to all. Adam belongs to the Jews, to the Christians, and to the Moslems; and even if they did not give him this name, he still belongs to every race and nation. The message is also missionary because it is confronted with false or incomplete constructs which are simply the product o f the human mind. It forms the message which Israel announced to the pagan peoples, who were prisoners o f their myths. It forms the message which Jews and Moslems, Catholics and

Protestants, united in one bond, must bring today to the world o f atheistic humanism by opposing it with biblical humanism. Upon returning from the exile, the priests reunited into a body the writings which compose the Old Testament and recast several traditions which existed during this period concerning the creation o f man. The most ancient is that o f Chapter 2. W e are first given a fundamental teaching on the nature o f man, by being shown it in its double relation to nature and God. From one viewpoint, man is a creature like all the others. It was God who formed him b y . taking him from the earth, from inanimate matter, and who breathed life, nephesh, into him. For life, identified with breath, belongs to God, whether it is man’s or an animal’s. When God withdraws his breath, man returns to the earth from which he was taken: “ For dust you are and into dust you shall return” (Gn 3:19). Therefore, the nothingness o f man before God is * brought out. His existence depends on the breath o f God. Psalm 104 takes up this theme: “ If you take away their breath, they die and return to dust. If you give your breath, they live” (29-30). Thus, like other creatures, man is nothing o f himself. He exists inas­ much as he is upheld by the breath o f God. To exist, for him, is to be related to Gcd, this relationship y constituting his being. To recognize this total depend­ ence is simply to recognize reality. This is the first instance o f biblical anthropology. It dismisses, from

the very beginning, all the pretensions o f man to being his own creator and his own provider. Elsewhere, Genesis 2 shows man as transcending the world o f nature. Jahweh has the animals pass before man to receive their names, for to name, in \ the Bible, expresses superiority. Man rules what he names. Thus, Adam appears as the lord o f the material ^ universe. The animals are placed in his service by God. This same superiority over the animal world is expressed more fully when the point is made that man does not find among them a helpmate. Referring to the argument against myth, which concerns our text, this aims at a conception where the borders between the animal world and the human world were uncertain, as well as those o f the human and divine world. Man is related to the animals, being conceived o f as a totem; and animals are adored as gods in Egypt. The word o f God organizes these confused concepts, pointing out the completely divergent levels o f existence, and showing their basic v differences. One day Pascal would say, “ All matter together does not produce an intelligent act; all spirits together do not produce an act o f charity.” This world o f nature is given to man to use as he wishes. God created man to “ till the soil” (2:6). Thus a fundamental characteristic o f biblical anthropology appears: nothing is more in conformity with the biblical vocation o f man than work by which he •Φchanges the material world. In this sense, we say that nothing is more biblical than the technical. The

development o f this idea is in strict conformity with the divine plan o f God, even when it concerns the work o f men who do not believe in him. But if technology is an aspect o f man, it is only one aspect o f him. The man o f technology must also be a man o f adoration. Jahweh gives him six days to rule over the world, but also one day to recognize the kingship o f God. To suppress adoration is to cut man in half. W hen Christians, Jews and Moslems uphold adora­ tion, it is not only the right o f God they are defending but also the very life o f man. Our text adds one last abstract to the nature o f man: the creation o f woman. The characteristics which describe this creation are worthy o f remark. It is stated that woman was formed from a rib taken from man. The author is probably using imagery derived from literary sources, as in the case o f man made from dust. But the reference signifies the perfect joining o f the nature o f man and woman v and the perfect bond which unites them: “ She now is bone o f m y bone and flesh o f my flesh” (2:24). Elsewhere, it is stated that God put man into a deep sleep. N o ordinary sleep is meant here. Ecstacy is used in the Greek text. The same word is used in another particularly solemn episode, on the occasion o f the first covenant between Jahweh and Abraham: “ Abraham fell into a deep sleep” (Gn 15:12). In both , cases, what is meant is a stupor, a “ suspension o f the senses” into which man enters when so near to God. It is mystical ecstacy.

The meaning o f the passage is evidently to point out that it is the compatibility o f man and woman which integrally constitutes human nature. This distinction o f the sexes belongs also to the animal kingdom. Without doubt, there is more than meets the eye in this passage: the affirmation o f the monog­ amous nature o f marriage.1 This is the sense in which Christ mentioned it (Mt 19:5). This corresponds to an argument against polygamy current at the time o f the prophets during which the text was written down. Saint Paul, in his turn, will use this passage to illustrate the relationship in the union o f Christ and the Church (Eph 5:6). This is not sufficient to exhaust the contents o f our text. W e can bring up one more special trait. In Genesis 1 126-27, the distinction between the sexes is presented in terms o f the transmission o f life: “ Be fruitful and multiply.” Here the creation o f woman seems to answer the statement: “ It is not good for man to be alone,” and without reference to fecundity. W hat is essential is that man was made to com­ municate with other men, that he is a social animal; and marriage appears as the highest expression o f this—more as an expression o f the community o f persons than the transmission o f life. Thus, after pointing out man in relation to God and the world, the text shows man’s relations with one another. XA. Gelin, Passage de la polygamiea la monogamie (Melanges Podechard), p. 140.

Values are supremely stated here. Tw o traits could characterize man according to the Bible: adoration and technology. However, one thing is missing: communication with others. Man is neither an object which can serve man, as is the world o f nature, nor is he an idol to whom he can give the homage which is due only to God. He must love others as himself, he must respect others as persons. The whole area o f human relations has its root in this text. B y it the basis o f the natural community o f all men is affirmed, notwithstanding the differences o f sex, race or state o f life. This community stands first in relation to all these differences and no one can abolish it. W hat the Jahwist account describes in its own concrete manner, the priestly author o f Chapter i treats in a striking abridgement where he summarizes everything in two verses: “ Let us make mankind in our own image and likeness. God created man to his own image. He created man and woman.” To say that God created man in his own image is to affirm his transcendence in his relationship to nature. Also, the text continues: “ That he rules over fish, and birds, and beasts.” But the word which implies similarity, demut, corrects what the first word could have exaggerated. If man is the image o f God he is only so by similarity and God is infinitely greater than he. Finally, he created man and woman; not only man alone, but the entire human race is in the image o f God. The relationship with another is what constitutes a person.

This is given to us as a description o f the ontological structure o f man in his various phases. A ll that remains is to place this structure within the realm o f history. Where has man come from and where is he going? W hat is his origin and what is his destiny? Science strives to penetrate the enigma o f man’s beginnings. The links which it finds between the more developed forms o f the animal world and the less developed forms o f the human world give hints o f a continuity. The Bible does not exclude this continuity since it tells us that man was formed from something o f a previous age. And the encyclical Humani Generis admits that this substance o f a previous age which the Bible calls dust, in referring to the common idiom o f the time, could be “ pre-existent animated matter.” But if what we said earlier is true, i f the essential teaching o f these pages is to point out these levels and to emphasize that man is in a special way an image o f the God who transcends all nature, we do not see how he could be the result o f this nature in what establishes him in his own order, in his reality as a free and intelligent being. All materialistic evolutionary theory is metaphysically absurd. The creation o f man is therefore creation in its proper sense, that is, an action by which God made some­ thing from nothing. This alone keeps us from a conception o f reality that will not admit that God did intervene in history. The entire Bible has nothing else as its purpose than to describe divine actions in

the realm o f phenomena. The creation o f man appears as revealing the wonders o f God, in the same w ay as the covenant with Abraham and the resurrection o f Jesus Christ. Those who deny one nearly deny the other. Biology and paleontology have nothing to do with this. They cannot explain to us what man is in his being any more than they can clarify the mystery o f his origin. Everything here belongs to another order, at the brink o f which positive science can go no further, not because o f insufficient knowledge, but because o f a totally different arrangement o f things. W hen they have explained everything, what remains is what Wladimir Jankelevitch calls the “je ne sais quoi” and the “ presque rien,” in other words a certain amount o f irreducible remainder— and yet this is everything. N or is man’s soul dependent on the evolution o f life any more than it is on the evolution o f technology. His tools change, but he is always the same. Something in him transcends all evolution. W e find as much intelligence in cave paintings six thousand years old as we do in the latest productions o f modern art. This goes to show how much the seeming incom­ patibilities o f the biblical account o f man’s beginnings and the scientific discoveries have been resolved. There would be an incompatibility only on the condition that the text would be made to say what it in no w ay does say. W e are not forced to regard the first man as a being whose knowledge o f the

natural world gradually evolved. Nothing keeps us from recognizing this man: a cave dweller with his primitive tools, who, by his intelligence, transcends the natural world and in whom we already see the image o f God. Now, what o f the destiny o f man? Here is the last note o f Genesis which we have not yet mentioned, the placing o f man in Paradise. Chapter 2 says that “ The Lord God planted a garden in Eden, to the East, and put there the man he had formed” (2:8). And Chapter 1 also gives a paradisal note to the state in which God created man when it alludes to the fact that animals eat only herbage (1:29). This feature is one which Isaias uses to describe the messianic era; peace among the animals is a symbol borrowed from ancient folk tales to designate the earthly Paradise. It is clear that this does not compel us to believe that there was ever a time when the meat-eating animals were vegetarians. This is the kind o f absurdity which non-believers sometimes attribute to believers, and the latter are responsible in the degree to which they lack religious know­ ledge. Paradise, in the eyes o f the Near East, is the home o f the gods. It is surrounded by a ring o f fire and guarded by cherubim. Often its location is in the north. These descriptions are used by Ezechiel (28 :12) to describe the exalted position given to the king o f Tyre by God:

Y o u were in Eden, in G o d ’s garden, Y o u were covered w ith precious stones, Y o u were an anointed cherub to protect it; I placed y o u on the H o ly M ountain o f God A n d y o u walked am ong sparkling jewels.

All these images are found in Genesis 2. The literary context is the same. For Genesis 2, Paradise is God’s dwelling place. W e see God moving about there. Clearly, from here on, the introduction o f Adam into Paradise by God begins a new phase. Man is brought into the presence o f God; he is called to live in the brilliance o f his presence. This is the glory which God originally gave to man and which man . lost by sin (Rom 3:23). Something other than what the account o f creation tells us is implied. This is a call given by God to man to a life which surpasses his nature and which is a participation in God’s life. It does not follow automatically from man’s nature. W e can even say that the first chapter o f Genesis is an argument against those mythical conceptions which would make man a divine being. There is only a resemblance to them. From the beginning God called man by his grace to a participation in his life which man does not possess by his nature. A primary essential is brought out here. Man, from the start, was called to a super­ natural end— a destiny which God still holds for him. Following from this, man’s entire history is regarded in a different perspective. From the beginning and in

its entirety, his life will be a drama o f grace and sin. The Bible does not say exactly how far man entered into this supernatural life. It is apparent that his full realization o f it was subject to conditions. And, on the other hand, the fact that man did not have access to the tree o f life seems to indicate that he was not fully endowed with the life o f God. The essential note, however, is that he was called from the beginning and has never ceased to have this as his Thus, just as Genesis introduced us to the secret o f man’s origin where neither science nor myth can penetrate, so too does it make known to us the most mysterious depths o f his future. From the start, prophetic insight, inspired by the Holy Spirit, goes beyond the natural state o f man into the hidden mysteries o f God’s plan. It shows us to what end man is ultimately destined, that which he can never achieve in his carnal state— entrance into God’s Paradise where only God can bring him, for only God has the key. If to create belongs to God alone, to sanctify, to enable a soul and body to live an immortal life while immersing them in the living fire o f the Spirit, belongs also only to God. This is the divine vocation to which Adam was called from the beginning, and which Christ fully perfected by his resurrection, when he opened Paradise to the good thief, after entering there himself as the new and final Adam. These pages, written so many centuries ago, still

shine forth today with unsullied brightness, like a box o f precious stones. The message which they brought to the men o f their time is one which the men o f our time await. And this incorruptibility manifests something which neither flesh nor blood has invented but which was revealed by the Spirit o f God. The atheists o f today mirror the pagans o f yesterday. It is always the image o f man which they change. So, we must always give to them this true idea o f man and his destiny, the possession o f which is only given by God’s word.

The Mystery of Sin W e c a l l a mystery those ultimate realities which are involved in the everyday existence o f man and which, at the same time, he is unable to fathom in full, so that he can neither explain them nor rid himself o f them. Such, as we have seen, is the first origin o f things. Also, the destiny o f man presents a similar picture. Likewise, the existence o f evil. No reality is more tragically evident than that which concerns misery o f the body or the soul. And no reality makes us feel as deeply the limits o f our reason and strength. Never has man explained evil and never has he uprooted it completely. This is a mystery, something which escapes our grasp. God alone can give us the understanding o f it; he alone can deliver us from it. The third chapter o f Genesis brings us to this inaccessible area. Few texts raise such problems. First o f all, there is the literary plane. W hat are the interpretations which we must give to the details which constitute the account? Theological problems arise, those o f the nature, the consequence, and the

transmission o f what we call “ original sin.” The variety o f interpretations which we see in the tradition o f the Church, from Saint Irenaeus and Saint Augustine to the masters o f contemporary exegesis, show that it is an area in which theological research has been and remains very active. One thing above all is certain. It does not concern a myth, nor a philosophy, but deals with an event. Sacred History, the rapport between man and God, is filled with drama from the beginning. It is this original drama which the inspired author describes to us. The first question posed by Genesis 3 concerns the sin o f Adam. This event is known through revelation, which allows the prophetic gaze to penetrate into a domain inaccessible to empirical inquiry. And consequently, the manner in which it is described is one which allows the author to describe it to himself and to present it to his contemporaries. Three points come into consideration. First, the role o f the serpent, who is the tempter. This maleficent role o f the serpent seems to raise a question about the pagan cults o f Chanaan. There, the serpent was adored as a god o f fecundity. And we recall the bronze serpent o f the Exodus which Moses used to represent the true God. Animals, as well as all the realities o f nature, are symbols. And the serpent, as Mircea Eliade has shown, has an eminently sacred character. But idolatry is a perversion o f this knowledge o f a God beyond the realities o f the cosmos. Saint Paul tells us that it consists in exchanging the majesty

o f an incorruptible God for images representing birds, beasts, or reptiles, to deify a created reality (Rom 1:22). The second question concerns “ the tree o f knowl­ edge o f good and evil.” H ow many commentaries have been written on the necessary bond which should be established between the experience o f evil and the awakening o f the conscience or on the impious character which knowledge as such assumes for the Bible! W hat o f the foolishness we have heard about the distrust which the Church should have towards intelligence, wherein she should see a menace! In fact, the comparison o f parallel texts shows that “ the science o f good and evil” simply means a complete science without moral qualifica­ tions. O n the other hand, we are not unaware that for the Bible knowledge is not speculative curiosity, but is always linked to the idea o f strength. The temptation o f Adam is therefore one o f acquiring a strength which makes him capable o f doing things similar to those done by the elohim, the celestial beings. In the context o f the time, this is magic. W e know from other sources the role which trees, oaks in particular, play in divination. The Book o f Judges (9:37) speaks o f “ the oak o f the wizards,” the ancestor o f “ the tree o f spirits.” W e find ourselves therefore in the midst o f a polemic against the nature cults o f Chanaan and their “ sacred woods,” so frequently found in the prophets o f the time o f our account (2 S 17:9).

The third problem concerns the role o f woman. The form under which this problem is presented is connected to the same cultural whole as the serpent and the tree. A majority o f critics underline the fact that the sin has a sexual character. But, as M. Coppens thinks, this is not the essential characteristic o f it. This only appears in relation to the fact that the Phoenician and Chanaanite rehgions presented an exalting o f sexuality, almost as rehgions o f life. Another approach is possible. The theme o f woman as a temptress flows through the sapiential books (Prv 7:1-27). She constituted a normal element in the temptation scene. And the sacred author could have been influenced by the daughters o f Eve, whose memory tradition brought to him, o f Delila seducing Samson, o f David’s love for Bathsheba. But throughout this presentation, which brings out the culture o f the sacred writer, the historical substance o f what he is teaching appears. And first o f all there is the fact that it was not by man that evil entered the world. The account speaks only o f a serpent. But when revelation will have progressed, Wisdom will show, in the serpent, the devil jealous o f man (2:24), and Saint John, in the Apocalypse, will identify “ the old serpent” with the devil and Satan (12:9). Here we encounter an abyss. Evil does not appear as a deviation which should have its sole beginning in the evil will o f man and which depends on him to rectify it. It existed before man and outside o f him. In other words, it does not constitute an

ontological principle as Manichean dualism holds. Evil then seems to be a spiritual thing that was created good and yet has fallen, whose action is opposed to God and which, since the beginning, man meets during his life. W hat we said concerning the tree o f good and evil shows the nature o f original sin. Essentially it is something religious. It is the temptation for man to seize divine power by his own strength, and thus accomphsh his salvation alone. It is the refusal to recognize his radical dependence on God and to accept from God his salvation as a free gift. Clearly a man o f the ninth century b .c . could best represent this will for power under the form o f magic. W e have an equivalent situation today in man’s pretension to effect his salvation through technical progress. In both cases, what characterizes sin is its illusory quality. The tempter is a liar who turns man from what is supremely real, God, to give importance to what is not. W om an’s cooperation in the first sin brings up a singular contrast with her role in the preceding chapter. From the beginning, she witnesses the existence o f human solidarity in evil as well as in good. N ot an individual, but the human community, as httle as it is, is engaged in the drama o f Sacred History. Elsewhere in the story, woman will have an outstanding role for evil as for good. She will one day have an incomparable role in the history o f grace. But she also bears a heavy responsibility in

the history o f sin. From the very beginning o f our account we are brought face to face with this responsibility, the power which she exercises over man, and the use she makes o f that power. This is the mystery o f woman, her particular mission in salvation history. W e have separated thus, in this account o f Genesis, what arises from description and what depends on revelation. But the organic link which the two aspects present must still be shown. This is what I mean. Nothing would be more superficial than to see, in the complexity o f the serpent, the tree, and the woman, the childish imaginings o f a pre-logical humanity. And nothing is less intelligent and less scientific than a certain Voltairian manner o f speaking ironically about these themes. In reality, the com­ parative history o f religions, depth psychology, and the rediscovery o f symbolic knowledge show us that we are in the presence o f data which lift up from the foundations o f human experience the elementary and permanent lines o f religious knowledge. Idolatry is the perversion o f this data. Even the very images in which original sin is described are not chosen at random, but are related even to the substance o f sin, as the idolatrous perver­ sion o f a creation destined to lead one to God. A comparison with the preceding chapters is remarkable in this regard. The first chapter o f Genesis was an argument against the worship o f heavenly bodies, animals, and trees. They were demythologized and

reduced to the state o f creatures, still retaining their hierophantic value. This polemic continues here in amplified form. The sacred author denounces the sin o f man who, from the start, instead o f recognizing the true God across the realities o f the cosmos, made the latter the object o f his worship and perverted their value; and more still, who made the supreme accomplishment o f God, man himself, an object o f adoration. There is original sin, that o f a creation which closes in on and revolves around itself instead o f opening itself to grace. Original sin presents two aspects: an historic event which, from the beginning o f humanity, sets the freedom o f man against God; and a certain state o f man, characterized by spiritual death and corporal mortality, which is the consequence o f this event. Up until now, we have treated the first point. Only the second remains. The third chapter o f Genesis, after having revealed what the first sin was, describes its consequences. These are many: shame (3:7), fear (3:10), the pain o f childbirth, the hardship o f work, mortality, deprivation o f the tree o f life and expulsion from Paradise. These data are diverse and pose many problems. In what sense can suffering and death be considered a result o f sin? Are they not part o f biological creation as such? How can we imagine a humanity like our own which could have been taken away from them? And do we not run the risk o f adhering to the Platonic concept o f spirits trapped in bodies?

Here still, it is important to draw out the meaning o f the images used by the sacred author. The essential point is evidently that o f the exclusion from Paradise and the deprivation o f the tree o f life. W e have said that Paradise signifies the dwelling place o f God. To be in Paradise is to be close to God. The tree o f life, then, is a tree which nourishes those who live in Paradise, with a divine life. The eternal plan o f God, as shown in Chapter 2, is to introduce man into this life. But this plan is foiled from the start by man’s pretension to be sufficient unto himself. This deprives him o f God’s gift, and merits the exclusion o f participation in God’s own life. N ow , this participation in God’s life has a double aspect. It causes a reaction in both the soul and the body. Man’s sin thus brings him a double death. The first is a spiritual death, expressed by shame and fear. God had called man to live with him in intimate familiarity. This is the freedom o f the sons o f God which Saint Paul will say was restored to us by Christ. It is an expression o f the free communication between God and man where God gives himself to man, and man gives himself to God. This exchange is a gift o f God because it is based on the fact that God raises man above his condition o f pure creature and introduces him into Paradise. This is what we call grace. It is in the degree to which man lives this life o f grace that he maintains the rapport o f filial freedom with God. The loss o f this confidence, the appearance o f shame and fear, is therefore the

concrete manifestation o f the loss o f grace, spiritual death. The destiny o f man’s body is the same. Here we must understand our text carefully. Clearly, it would be absurd to imagine a humanity like our own in all respects and which would ignore suffering and death. These two points are, in reality, constituents o f the biological being as such. And on the biological level they are in no w ay bad. God created them as he did all other things. The law o f nature is, once attaining maturity, passing on life, an organism “ returns to dust.” The myth o f natural immortality o f bodies is ridiculous. An indefinite prolongation o f an existence such as ours would be dreadful, as Simone de Beauvoir saw in “ All Men Are Mortal.” It therefore concerns something else. Life and death, o f which we are here speaking, are not those things whose boundaries are marked by the separation o f the body and soul. These are two states o f man; man animated by the life o f God which raises him above his natural condition; or man left in his natural condition, which is mortal. W hat Scripture teaches us then, when it states that Adam and Eve were condemned to suffer and die, is that their bodily life had followed its normal course and had not been raised above its natural condition by entrance into a supernatural glorious life which is not comparable to the present life. Thus, the fact o f being subject to the laws o f biological existence is a punishment only to the

extent that God destined man for an existence which transcends biological life. The author o f Genesis pictured this biological condition with characteristics which were for him and which remain for us most striking: the difficulty o f work for man, the pain o f childbirth for woman, and the inevitability o f death for all. This in no way excludes what science can do to alleviate these pains. Here it is not the question o f more or less, but o f a difference o f order. And this is the reason why no human progress, whatever it is, can give salvation to man, allowing him to pass into a different order. Therefore, we see what the consequences o f Adam’s sin entail for the humanity which succeeded him. Human nature is not destroyed. Catholic theology has always held that intelligence and human liberty are still exercised, but that they were weakened. Otherwise, the supernatural end o f man still persists. W hat original sin blocks is access to the supernatural order. This is precisely the point o f Genesis. Paradise is the doorway to this realm and expulsion from Paradise signifies that forevermore this entrance is impossible. Christ will restore it. This does not mean that during the time from Adam to Christ men were not always morally responsible, but that they did not have the familiarity with God called sanctifying grace. And it does not mean that only “ the just” were destined to be near to God, but that it would only be effective when Christ will have made it once more possible and will have descended

into hell, to find there those who were awaiting their deliverance. W e see now the importance o f these pages. They emphasize the most essential gifts o f mankind. The light o f revelation allows us to gain access to these final realities which reason cannot fathom. To minimize the reality o f original sin, in its historical origin, with its results for mankind, is to destroy at the same time the meaning o f the death and resur­ rection o f Christ. The seriousness o f this revelation demands that we be unyielding in bringing it out into the open and not to equivocate the substantial content and the secondary representation o f it. To clearly discern these two areas is an arduous, but indispensable, task. It is one o f the main works o f theology; and the theologian has no right to neglect it. For in this lies the seriousness o f his responsibility.

Adam and Christ is entirely prophetic. It recalls the past events o f humanity and o f Israel only to announce the events o f the future which are the more perfect repetition o f them. The memory o f creation accompanies the announcement o f the new creation, that o f the exodus, the prophecy o f the N ew Exodus. There are other essential protagonists. To Abraham is announced that all the nations o f the earth will be blessed in his descendants (Gn 12:4), to Moses that a prophet greater than he will follow him, to David that a king from his house will reign forever. The N ew Testament shows us the realization o f these announcements in Christ. He appears as the new Abraham, the new Moses, the messianic king, whom Abraham, Moses, and David prefigured. This is eminently true o f Adam. He was told in effect, in chapter three o f Genesis, that one o f his descendants will triumph over the Serpent. Thus, Genesis joins the account o f the serpent’s victory over Adam and the future victory o f the N ew Adam over the serpent. The N ew Testament will show us that

T

he

O

ld

T

estam en t

this declaration is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The life o f Jesus appears entirely as the repetition o f what was begun by Adam. It is the same W ord o f God, who formed Adam out o f the virgin soil o f Paradise and who comes to reclaim him in the womb o f the Virgin. He was introduced into Paradise from the beginning; but Adam succumbed to temptation and could not remain there. B y the resurrection, the W ord o f God brought Adam again into Paradise and this time he grasped it so strongly that never again could it escape from him; from here on man is brought by him into the life o f the Trinity. It is indeed remarkable to see how the N ew Testament suggests this relationship o f Adam and Christ. The scene o f the temptation o f Jesus in the desert recalls the temptation o f Israel in the desert o f the Exodus. But, beyond this, it recalls the first temptation in the Garden. Opposed to the infidelity o f the first Adam, preferring the suggestion o f the serpent to obedience to God, is the fidelity o f the Second Adam despising the proddings o f Satan by obedience to the Father. Mark, who gives no detail o f Christ’s temptation, presents him in the desert “ living among wild beasts and served by angels” (1:13). Jesus appears thus as a repetition o f the first Adam who dominated the animals and was served by cherubim. Later, Paradise regained will express itself in the lives o f the desert fathers who will dominate the animals and will five in the company o f angels.

Even more, the account o f the Passion o f Christ, in Saint John, appears to us as the counterpart o f the scene in the first Garden. The tree o f knowledge is contrasted to the tree o f the cross which is the real tree o f life. The new Adam confronts the prince o f this world as the first Adam had been confronted by him. And Christ’s victory over death restores what Adam’s fault had lost. Paradise, closed since Adam, is reopened: “ Today, Jesus said to the thief, you will be with me in Paradise.” His resurrection is the restoration— definitive this time— o f humanity to Paradise, the accomplishment o f God’s plan for Adam from the start. And as Eve was at the side o f the first Adam and took part in the sin, so Mary, the new Eve, mutans Evae nomen, was at the side o f the N ew Adam and participated in the reparation o f what the first Eve had jeopardized. And as the effect o f death overtook Eve, body and soul together, delivering her with Adam over to sin and mortality, Mary appears to us as she in whom, from now on, both integrity o f soul and incorrupt­ ibility o f the body are restored, the first fruits o f the Church. Paradise would not be restored i f the new Eve did not henceforth share the privileges o f the new Adam. Humanity would not be entirely restored to Paradise, if woman who had been expelled with Adam was not restored there with Christ. The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption make this plainly evident, so that the Church has recognized them by defining them as an integral part o f the faith

in view o f the theology o f the N ew Adam. “ This is a great mystery,” said Saint Paul, by showing in the union o f Adam and Eve the prefiguring o f the sanctification o f the Church by Christ. Christ, the spouse o f the Church, would not enter into Paradise in his fullness if, in Mary, the Church was not already present. Also the Apocalypse o f John witnesses this. In an episode where reference to the account o f Genesis is certain, we see the woman crowned with stars confronting the dragon, “ the serpent o f old” (12:9). It is certainly the accomplishment o f the prophecy o f Genesis which announced to the serpent the conflict that would never cease between him and the descendants o f woman, and in which he would ultimately be conquered. In effect, the snake, the seducer o f the world, is cast out. W oman is carried away on the wings o f a Great Eagle to a place prepared by God in Paradise. This is not, however, the only allusion to Genesis which the Apocalypse makes. In two other instances it is recorded that the tree o f life is given to him who shares Christ’s victory. It is in this way that the incorruptible life which Adam lost by his sin is regained. W hat the Gospels and the Apocalypse suggest to us in these allusions, Saint Paul expresses in his theological explanations. In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, he contrasts the first Adam, in whom the heavenly vocation o f man was not accomplished and who has returned to a biological existence, with

the N ew Adam who brings humanity life everlasting: “ In this sense is it written: the first man, Adam, was created a living soul; the second became a living spirit. W hat came first is not the spiritual, but the animal; the spiritual came afterwards. The first man, brought from the earth, is earthy; the second Adam comes from heaven” (15:45-47). In the Epistle to the Romans especially, he contrasts the first Adam, who began the reign o f sin and death, to the second Adam, who was the source o f grace and life. Adam was thus the sign o f him who was to come (5:14). But what was accomplished substantially in Christ is now shared by those who believe in the salvation accom­ plished through him. The Church is Paradise already present in the world, a place filled with divine strength, where man is restored by baptism, where he is fed by the Eucharist, the food o f immortality. The parallel between the catechumen in the doorway o f the Church and Adam in Paradise is constant in liturgical tradition. The renunciation o f Satan is the denouncement o f the agreement which bound humanity to evil since Adam and which is abolished in Christ, so that every man can take advantage o f this liberation. The white robe which the newly baptized wears is the visible symbol o f the glory given by baptism. Instead o f fleeing behind trees to avoid the eye o f God, as did Adam, the new Christian converses with the Father with the freedom o f a son o f God. W e see the importance o f the references which the

N ew Testament brings to the account o f Paradise and the Fall. Only this consideration shows us how seriously we must take this account. Saint Paul, in particular, brings out points which Genesis left in darkness. Only in reference to the first sin, to the state o f spiritual and corporal death in which it left humanity, do the death and resurrection o f Christ acquire their meaning. If there had been no original sin, Christ would not have had to die. And Paradise, which the resurrection restores to us, would be no more than some primitive myth lost in an imaginary past. This is the most marvelous o f present realities. It is the sacramental environment in which our life is lived. W e must dig out the missionary meaning in Christian references to Adam. This is most important. It shows us that the Christ event is not situated within the limitations o f space and time, but that it concerns the totality o f humanity in space and time. There is a frequent tendency today to neglect the first chapters o f Genesis and tobegin sacred history with Abraham. But, if it was to Abraham that Christ compared himself, he would be considered only in his reference to the Jewish people. In this perspective is located Christ’s genealogy according to Matthew who goes back only to Abraham. But Luke goes back to Adam: “Jesus . . . son o f Adam, son o f God.” He shows thusly that the Christ event concerns all mankind. Christian universalism is what concerns us here. It is not Israel which the W ord o f God came to save,

it is man: Jewish, Hindu, Chinese, Greek, African, Arabian, Russian, and Latin. All belong to the race o f Adam. All are sinners because o f the sin o f Adam. A ll are called to Salvation by the N ew Adam. It is more important in this sense to refer Christ to Adam, than to Abraham or David. W ith the story o f Adam, the story o f Christ presents the most fundamental similarity. The virginal conception o f Jesus is a creative work as great as the creation o f Adam, since it concerns the new man. Only with Christ will Paradise, where Adam had been placed, be restored. And reference neither to Sara, Esther nor Judith, but only to Eve, gives us the true meaning o f Mary. Therefore, there can be no serious theology o f the Incarnation or the Redemption without referring to chapter three o f Genesis. To leave it in darkness, to be content with only a small part o f the subject, is to risk jarring one’s faith in the redemption. Where original sin is minimized, the redemption takes the same path. And where the redemption is minimized, faith is gone. Notice, however, that it is the N ew Testament which gives the account o f Genesis its importance. The remainder o f the Old Testament speaks very little o f it. Thus, in the N ew Testament, the true extent o f the divine plan appears in its universality, which manifests itself as encompassing the complete history o f humanity. Here we meet another aspect o f the relationship o f Christ and Adam. The W ord o f God did not come to recapture only the human nature born o f Adam.

His action redirects in some manner the course o f time and will re-echo in the depths o f past human history back to Adam himself, so that the total effects o f sin are repaired. In this light the redemption is really a re-introduction o f what was lost in Adam. It destroys the effects o f original sin even in him who committed it. This teaching is beautifully brought out by Saint Irenaeus. It constitutes one o f the aspects o f his doctrine o f “ recapitulation” o f all things in Christ. The W ord comes not only to save all men, but every man o f whom he is the leader and “ whom he will draw to himself at an opportune time” (Adv. Haer. Ill, 6, 6). One text must be noted: “ It was necessary that the Lord, coming to the lost sheep and recapitulating such an economy and searching for what he had made, should save man who had been created to his image and likeness, that is, Adam, after what he had accomplished in the painful times after his disobe­ dience, so that God may not be conquered, nor Wisdom appear weakened. If man who had been created by God to live, and had lost hfe by the serpent’s wound, had not recovered it, but instead should be completely absorbed by death, God would have been conquered and the serpent’s plan would have been fulfilled” (Adv. Haer. Ill, 23, 1). Thus it belongs to the complete victory over the serpent that Adam himself was taken from his kingdom. W e see also how this entails missionary con-

sequences. One o f the questions which the first Christians asked concerned the effect o f the redemp­ tion on those who preceded Christ. The doctrine o f the descent into Hell answers this question. Christ descended into Sheol to search out the just who awaited his coming. These just ones, says Clement o f Alexandria, are also the saints o f paganism. And ultimately, Adam was among them. This is what the Byzantine artists have understood who show us Christ rising from the fires on Easter morning, while holding by the hand the saints o f the Old Testament and Adam in the first place. The salvation o f Adam was formally affirmed by the Fathers o f the Church, during the second century, against Tatian who denied this. It is all those after Adam and before Christ that Christ came to save and bring back: “ He brought unto himself all the peoples disbursed since Adam, all languages and all generations o f men, Adam himself included” (Adv. Haer. Ill, 29, 3). The reference to Adam, seals the universal character o f the W ord’s action and guarantees the possibility o f salvation for the unbelievers. N ow the importance o f the Paradise account, and the Temptation account is clear. W e have tried to illuminate these pages by a double burst o f criticism and faith. W e believe that under this cross-fire they manifest their incomparable value. Their teaching is snatched back from the sands o f time. Severe criticism must hack them from the vein where they lay. Only then will they shine with all their bright-

ness. Faith strengthens the revealed kernel. Without criticism they become obscured by the veils which prohibit easy access—but only criticism that penetrates to the incomparable contents to which faith adheres as to the word o f God.

The Peoples of the Earth T h e p r o b l e m o f the diversity o f peoples is important, both for the concept o f human civilization and for that o f the Church. Is this diversity o f peoples, their cultures and tongues, negligible data, even an evil, and would it be ideal to have a uniform humanity; or, on the contrary, is this diversity a part o f the fecundity o f creation and does it suggest a permanent characteristic, an ontological value? The Bible has two answers to this question in Chapters io and n o f Genesis, which are i f not contrary, at least com­ plementary. A ll certainly recognize the second, which is in the account o f the Tow er o f Babel. W e will speak o f this in the next chapter. This chapter is devoted to the first. Chapter ten o f Genesis presents a picture o f the descendants o f the three sons o f Noah: Sem, Ham, and Japhet. Since the rest o f humanity was supposed to have been annihilated by the flood, this chapter concerns the totality o f mankind. However, it is understood that this humanity is one which the author knew. It would be absurd to be astonished at

the absence o f the Chinese or the Aztecs on our list, or to pretend to link them to those already mentioned. W e will have to unravel the teachings revealed in these pages. But in no way does it pretend to be a course in ethnology; the scientific concepts o f the author and the world situation at the time o f their writing are reflected. Can an approximate date be set for this period? Chapter io reveals two different documents. The principal part belongs to the Priestly Code, the same as Chapter i, o f which it is a continuation, as we will see, and whose spirit it shares. This could place the writing about the fifth century before Christ. But the Priestly Code uses more ancient sources; and our text certainly fits this case. It can therefore describe the situation around the beginning o f the Israelite monarchy. The rest o f the chapter belongs to the Jahwist tradition, written about the same period. The difference between the two texts is less in the period which they describe to us than in the light under which they consider it. They are both the echo o f the description which Israel constructed o f mankind around the beginning o f the first millennium before Christ. W e shall make only two remarks about the list o f peoples. First, to what does the tripartite division between Sem, Ham, and Japhet correspond —legendary eponyms o f three great human families, according to our account? The study o f the peoples who comprised these families shows that the division

is not based on race. The document is o f no interest in etymological matters, although we continue to speak o f Semites or Hamites. Nor is it based on the geographic distinction o f continents, Europe, Asia, or Africa, which do not appear until Greek times. It is more from a political point o f view and it describes the three great groups which shared leadership during the second millennium. The first is the Hittite Empire, centered in Asia Minor, and to which our list attaches the island peoples; these are the sons o f Japhet.1 The second is the Egyptians, called Misraim, to which Chanaan and Palestine are attached, which verifies the Egyptian rule in Israel during the time o f the author. The third is the countries o f the East, Assur, Aram; the sons o f Sem, o f which the Hebrews form a part. A second remark is more important for the meaning o f the text. If we count the number o f enumerated people, seventy are mentioned. This number is certainly not an accident. From other sources we learn that it is a symbol for the universality o f people. The ritual for the Feast o f Tabernacles prescribes that seventy rams be sacrificed for the pagan nations. The first book o f Henoch, 89, 59 and following, states that the nations are divided among seventy elders who are the angels o f these nations. The Testament o f Nephtali shows Jahweh descending with seventy angels who teach their language to the 1Cf. E. Dhorme, “ Les peuples issus de Japhet,” Recueil Edouard Dhorme (Paris, 1951), pp. 161-191.

seventy nations. The legend o f how the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek by seventy elders, deriving the name Septuagint, comes from what was the Bible o f the nations. And the sending forth by Christ o f the seventy disciples together with the twelve apostles appears to signify the mission to the Gentiles alongside that to the Jews.2It seems that this was done to conform to the tradition, that the writer o f our chapter arranged things so that he would arrive at the exact number seventy, which was already before him as the symbol o f all mankind. A t the same time one intention presents itself: what was important for him was not to construct a complete enumeration, but to signify by the number seventy the universality o f all peoples. Therefore, this universality is the essential content o f our passage, universality symbolized by an enumeration, the value o f which our writer was no more certain o f than w e.3 N ow we come to what is o f permanent interest to us in this chapter. In its genre it represents something unique, a theology o f the community. One thing strikes us as we read. In the rest o f the Bible, the pagan nations are presented in opposition with the people o f God; here, they are pictured with serenity and entire objectivity. It does not even concern itself with the pagan nations. It simply concerns peoples. *Cf. Bruce E. Metzger, Seventy or Seventy-two Disciples (N. T. S. 5, pp. 299-306. 3Conceming the theme o f seventy peoples in Jewish and Christian literature, cf. Amo Borst, Die Turmbau von Babel, I, (Stuttgart, 1957), pp. m -325. 1 9 5 9 ),

The author no longer places himself in a perspective o f dramatic conflicts which oppose the idolatrous nations to the elect, but in a previous world where nations are considered only in their natural reality and as contributing to God’s creation. In this sense our chapter rejoins the first chapter o f Genesis, beyond the history o f sin and its consequences. It belongs to the same Code; it is literally its continua­ tion. As Chapter i enumerated the works o f material creation and gave glory to God on this occasion, so also do we see here the works o f human creation enumerated and praise given on this occasion. Our chapter is the accomplishment o f the commandments given to the first man and woman, precisely according to the Priestly Code: “ Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it” (Gn 1:28). This command was given again after the Flood. Jahweh said to Noah’s sons: “ Be fruitful and multiply; abound on the earth and subdue it” (Gn 9:7). W e see this blessing directly fulfilled in Chapter 10. It is a poem in praise o f creation. The names o f each people resound as a hymn to Jahweh. W e realize the paradox o f this chapter if we recall that these are the peoples whom the rest o f the Bible presents as the enemies o f the true God. But we must go further. The development o f humanity in general is not the only thing presented as the accomplishment o f God’s plan. The text states that this humanity is divided “ into families, languages, countries, and nations.” Thus, the variety o f people

appears as the expression o f God’s plan, as an aspect o f creation’s beauty. This diversity is in the racial, cultural, geographic, and political order. Thus, any conception which would see in this diversity a con­ sequence o f sin is excluded. On the contrary, it is constitutive o f human nature. To suppress it would be against nature. The concept o f a culture which would replace others and create a uniform humanity, a world empire which would suppress national customs, appears strange to the natural order; this one com­ prises a community o f nations and a meeting o f cultures. W e are given here a philosophy o f society, and it is the only case in ancient literature. W e can see clearly the expression o f a divine revelation. These aspects are nearly totally absent from the rest o f the Old Testament. When the authors o f Wisdom, Job, and Daniel described the miracle o f creation, they restricted themselves to the natural order. But it is remarkable that our themes reappear in the N ew Testament. Thus, on Pentecost, those present at Jerusalem heard the Apostles “ praise the greatness o f God, each in his own tongue” (Acts 2:6-11). The miracle o f Pentecost is not the unifica­ tion o f language, but the gift to all tongues o f the praise reserved only to the Jews since Abraham. Even Paul, in the discourse to the Areopagites, taught that “ God made all the races o f the earth from one man, while fixing determined time and Emits for their habitation” (Acts 17:26). Thus we have geographical distribution and perhaps also the historic periods

which are presented as God’s plan. 4 Deuteronomy already teaches that “ God has set limits to the peoples according to the number o f his angels” (32:8). The chaos among the nations, as the cosmic chaos, will appear as a sign o f the end o f time (Matt 24:7). In this genealogy one singular trait must be highlighted. It does not represent, as von Rad states, any “ center.” All people are placed on exactly the same plane. There exists a kind o f implacable objectivity and in particular, strangely enough, the people to which the archivists credit this text do not give any place to it. Only Chanaan as a territory and Eber among the descendants o f Sem are named. Certainly, there can be an anxiety for historical probability, a willingness not to project into the past a present state. W e shall return to this. But first the uniqueness o f the fact must be noted. It is an enigma in the history o f religions. Everywhere else we see people considering themselves as the center o f the world and o f history. China calls herself the Empire o f the Middle East; the same for Egypt and Assur. The Jews themselves, subsequently, wished to locate the center o f the universe at Jerusalem and to see at Calvary the tomb o f Adam. There is more. W hen they searched for their most distant ancestors, all the peoples o f antiquity claimed divine origin and pretended to attach themselves to some mythical hero. This divine origin persists furthermore with the princes o f these peoples. The 4von Rad, op. cit., pp. 161-165.

emperors o f Babylon and the Pharaohs o f Egypt were considered as divine beings. Our text presents a radical contrast with this: the world o f nations is totally demythologized. 5 This is considered with total scientific objectivity. The nations are simply the realities which make up creation. This reminds us o f something. W e saw that a characteristic mark o f Chapter i o f Genesis was the demy thologizing o f the cosmic realities. They had been presented as simple creatures and this was an argument against their divinity. The same holds true here for the realities o f history. Our text is a radical denunciation o f the historic idolatries which made a race, a class, a culture an absolute thing. This brings up an essential consequence for a theology o f the community: the renunciation o f racism, o f all pretension o f one race as being superior to another. All peoples are presented entirely on the same level; and Israel, in particular, in no way presents herself as having a privileged place in the plan o f creation on the level o f natural values. The idea o f some sort o f superiority o f the Jewish race as a race, o f the Hebrew language as a language, is totally alien to Revelation. It will later be seen as unjustified pretension. Ezechiel will condemn it unmercifully: “ So spoke the Lord Jahweh to Jerusalem: From your beginning and your birth, you are o f the earth o f Chanaan; your father was an 6Bertil Gartner, The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation, (Upsal, 1955). pp· 147-152.

Amorite and your mother a Hittite” (16:3). This striking passage links Israel to Chanaan, from the geographic point o f view, and to Ham from the racial viewpoint. This involves a remarkable consequence as regards the consciousness Israel had o f her privileged character. In no w ay does this bring up a natural superiority, which would ultimately connect itself to the universe o f myths. It belongs in the realm o f choice and is attached to a historical decision o f Jahweh. The beginning o f Israel concerns exclusively the calling o f Abraham. God came to call a man o f some one race to make a covenant with him and his descend­ ants, and to make them a sacred people. The Israelites do not belong to the created world, nor to the natural order. They belong to the order o f sacred history, to the plan o f Salvation. That is w hy there will be no question o f it before Abraham. In such a way, then, is the biblical theology o f the nations radically opposed to mythical theology, and at the other end o f the scale, the natural world, that o f cultures and states, is entirely secularized; and this theology recognizes nothing outside the realm o f salvation history. There is, however, a mythical element which appears in the chapter, and this belongs to the Jahwist Code. It does not concern Israel. In the midst o f an impersonal description o f the nations, there suddenly arises a unique person: “ Kush begets Nimrod: the first hero on the earth. His empire was

Babel” (8-10). Nimrod is set forth as a hero. For as K. Thieme has pointed out, a hero is a fabled personage. 6 Chapter 6 o f Genesis presents this hero as bom o f the union o f fallen angels and the daughters o f men (4). Nimrod corresponds to the mythical conception which sees the kings as divine persons. The Bible does not take to itself this idea which the nations had made o f themselves. This mythical divinization o f the nations in the person o f its princes represents the temptation o f human pride. It marks the appearance o f sin in the heart o f the creation o f all nations. As the creation o f man had been ruined from its beginning by original sin, so also, from the start, did the creation o f the nations appear ruined by sin. The nations, who are themselves a part o f God’s creation and who are good, will become the preferred domain o f the forces o f evil as soon as they begin to worship idols, and will constitute the kingdom o f Satan which opposes the kingdom o f God. This desire for power brings about immediate disorder. Nimrod, the founder o f the empire, violates the boundaries o f the nations set up by God.7 The spirit o f domination logically springs from the race’s pretension to have a superior origin. But this new aspect o f the theology o f nations, which shows them marked by sin, is not indicated 6K. Thieme, Nimrod, Kusch und Babel, HistorischesJahrbuch, 74 (1955), pp. 1-11. 7von Rad, op. cit., p. 161.

in the chapter. It will be the object o f the following chapter and we will study it in its place. There remains one ontological trait o f the nations, their structure in the divine plan. W e have already seen that their diversity was a part o f the order established by God. This diversity finds itself in a deep-seated unity. The text o f Genesis is strict in this regard. All the world’s peoples stem from one man, Noah. This will be more formally expressed by Saint Paul: “ God has ordered the entire face o f the earth to be inhabited by all races stemming from one single man” (Acts 17:26). The context o f Paul’s passage seems to indicate that, no matter what the majority o f exegetes say, it is concerned with Noah and not with Adam. The essential point is therefore not the unity o f origin— since the person o f Noah is more an ideal figure than a determined individual—but the affirma­ tion that all mankind constitutes a single species, that there is but one human nature. This affirmation is the necessary complement o f that o f the diversity o f the races. It defines the point where diversity stops and unity begins. There can be a variance in language; but the structure o f human essence is the same everywhere. The same is true as regards the values which constitute the human being in the diversity o f their expressions. This unity is, then, a unity o f friendship. Each man is a brother to the other. And this fraternity is more important than national diversity; hospitality forms the first and decisive expression o f it. This unity is finally a unity

o f destiny. Human destiny is, first o f all, universal; it comprises all the people which God created equal and whom he wishes to save. The choice o f Israel will only be a temporary step. In Christ, this universalism will show itself as bypassing all national diversity without destroying it: “ There is no longer either Greek, or Jew, but you are one in Jesus Christ.” W e see the importance o f this text, for it forms the high point o f the poem o f creation. It shows in this history o f the peoples the ultimate unfolding o f the divine plan. It is a witness to the fact that the unravelling o f this history is basically good at its root and that it glorifies God as well as the material universe. The world o f peoples represents an order beyond which we can see the divine wisdom and strength. Sin will mark this history; but, i f it greatly disturbs it, it will not hinder its vital impetus. Christ will come to bring it its ultimate glory in raising it above itself. These are the riches o f the nations which he will bring into the eternal Jerusalem.

The Tower of Babel o f Genesis, which tells the story o f the Tower o f Babel, appears to contradict Chapter io, mentioned in the preceding chapter. This previous chapter shows us one aspect o f the beauty o f creation in the diversity o f peoples and languages. N ow , on the contrary, Chapter 1 1 tells us that men spoke only one language in the beginning and in order to punish them for having built the Tower o f Babel, God dispersed the peoples and confused their languages. These two theses are evidently incompatible and all efforts to make them compatible have failed. In reality, the two chapters are not on the same plane, belonging to completely different literary genres. Chapter io, like Chapter i, belongs to the Priestly Code. The author is interested in creation and describes it solely for itself. It is to him that we must turn in order to grasp the theology o f the peoples and languages which are considered as aspects o f creation. Chapter n , which belongs to the Jahwist Code, presents an entirely different outlook, the same one which we met in Chapters 2 and 3. It C

h apter

ii

concerns the drama o f sin and salvation which is described to us in terms not considered in their natural reality, but as instruments o f meaning. There are several examples o f this. The serpent is considered, in the first chapter, as an animal whose nature it is to crawl and, in this sense, he is one o f the species o f creation which is good. In Chapter 3, the author considers crawling in a symbolic sense- as an expression o f a curse from God. W e go from biological description to ethnic symbolism, which, elsewhere, corresponds to two stages o f culture. The Jahwist Code springs from a poetic mentality which interprets the gifts o f nature in an anthropomorphic sense. The Priestly Code, on the other hand, begins the scientific age. The same is true for these two chapters as concerns peoples and languages. Chapter 10 is a description o f a quasi-scientific character. The account o f the Tower o f Babel interprets the same data in a symbolic perspective in order to signify by it its revealed content, the knowledge o f the drama o f sin.1 The diversity o f languages is not considered for itself, as something good as in Chapter 10, but under the particular aspect which constitutes the impossibility o f communication between men o f different tongues. “ Let us go down, and there confuse their language so that they will not understand one another’s speech” (11:7). The story o f the original unity o f language, considered as a symbol o f union among men, is opposed to this. ^orst, op. cit., p. 117.

This “ tendentious” character o f interpretation is the same for all the traits o f the account. Borst has written that “ we know very well that the Tower was in reality not a monument o f pride but o f pity.” 2 The Babylonian pyramids were elevated temples. Our author was well aware o f this, but he retained the gigantic aspects o f it in order to show it as a symbol o f pride, just as he retained the aspect o f incomprehension to show the diversity o f languages as a punishment. This is clearer from the etymology o f the noun Babel. The word means “ doorway o f the gods” and our author does not ignore it. B y an etymological pun he interprets it according to a similar root which means “ confusion.” W e see the deformation which the facts undergo in order to make them symbols; and in this sense, the text illustrates a very subtle art which recalls that o f the account o f Paradise and o f sin. Again we find here the tendency to polemic which we have already met in Chapters 2 and 3. The apparent bad faith o f the author signifies his refusal to take the pagan cult seriously, and he relieves them o f their mystifying qualities. Babylon is not really the holy city which it pretends to be, the doorway o f the gods; it is simply human confusion. The ziggurat is not the dwelling place o f the divine presence; it is only the monument o f human pride. Nimrod is not a descendant o f the gods, nor their earthly lieutenant; he is simply a man who pretends *Borst, ibid.

to elevate himself above the others and whose pride Jahweh will destroy: “ You say in your heart, I will climb to the skies; I will raise m y throne above God’s stars; I will be like unto the Most High. And here you are fallen into Sheol, into the depths o f the abyss” (Is 14:13-15). This is said to establish the genre o f the episode whose essential content we are investigating. The Jahwist author’s object in these chapters is to show the spread o f sin in the world after the first sin, Adam’s. Thus he first shows to us, in the story o f Cain and Abel, the appearance o f homicide. Chapter 6 shows us, following the fall o f the angels, the entire earth perverted and filled with violence (6:11). After the Flood, corruption again raises its ugly head. W e see that this outlook is the exact inverse o f Chapter 10. This chapter shows us the history o f the cosmos and o f humanity with an optimistic outlook on creation, as the progressive fulfillment o f God’s work. It is a view o f ascending evolution. Chapter 11, following the Jahwist tradition, shows us the growth o f evil increasing from generation to generation. This contrast is fundamental for the biblical theology o f the story, for both these points o f view are equally true. The world is in the process o f advancement and, at the same time, a process o f decadence. It tends both towards the perfection o f good and the accumulation o f evil. The optimistic priest and the pessimistic prophet who wrote these two documents are the ancestors o f Teilhard de Chardin and Karl Barth.

The chapter takes on a particular aspect from this increase o f sin. If the story o f Adam or that o f Cain designates individual sin, the story o f the Tower o f Babel shows us sin in society.3 W e fmd ourselves, as in Chapter io, immersed in the theology o f inter­ national society, o f the community o f peoples, and o f political history. This highlights the Creator’s plan. In this sense it is basically good. W e have said in the preceding chapter that race, culture, the nation, and the state are aspects o f God’s creation. This political history can be and is, in fact, always corrupted by sin; the realities which constitute it are thus perverted. The earthly kingdom becomes the kingdom o f this world which is opposed to the kingdom o f God, thus entering into the drama o f sin. Essentially ambiguous, it can re-enter God’s plan or set itself against him. One will notice that the essential traits which characterize the sinful view o f human society are the same as those which characterize the view o f this society in God’s plan. But they appear as a deforma­ tion o f it through human pride in its collective form. The unity o f language is presented as corresponding to the primitive state in which God created man: “ The whole world used one language and the same words.’’ This was a symbol o f a type o f Paradisic existence; now it is the same unity which is the principal force from which man draws his pride: “ Truly they are one people and they all have the same language. This is the beginning o f what they 3Cf. Gaston Fessard, Pax Nostra, pp. 241-258.

will do” (11:6). And this is w hyjahw eh confounded their tongues. It would seem that the privileged state in which God created man exposes him to dangerous tempta­ tions. Father de Vaux has noted that the action here is the same as in the parallel account o f the first sin.4 As in the first instance, Jahweh had removed man from Paradise so that he could not eat o f the tree o f life, so also here he breaks the bond so that man is not able to avail himself o f strength which he will use badly. Thus, unity appears as ambiguous. It is a sovereign good— and in the end will be founded in Christ. For the moment, however, it is a great temptation; the idea o f a world empire encompassing all human resources is the expression o f promethean pride in its collective form. Even under the form given to it by Constantine and theorized by Eusebius it will remain ambiguous. It is the temporal degrada­ tion o f eschatological unity, for the temporal condition o f mankind after Babel is one o f a plurality o f nations. 5 The same can be said in reference to the city and the tower. The development o f civilization is contemplated. The city symbolizes it by its relation to the normal existence o f the tribes. This could be considered as one aspect in the development o f humanity. However, civilization finds itself a slave 4Pere de Vaux, O.P., La Genese, p. 71. 5Jean Danielou, The Angels and Their Mission, (tr. David Heimann), 1957, p- 113.

to human pride. Babel, the city, is the seat o f one o f the great empires which expresses desire for domina­ tion. From now on it is synonymous with the kingdom o f this world in its opposition to the city o f God. Babylon will forever be a reminder o f this. In the Apocalypse, Babylon will symbolize the per­ secutions o f the Roman Empire, and Jerusalem will oppose it as the holy city. And what o f the Tower? In itself, as we have said, it is one o f those ziggurats, a many-storied tower, considered as the divine dwelling place. It can also be an expression o f human pride. 6 The idea is not to accomplish an ascent into heaven, as the Greek piling Ossa on Pelion, but rather it signifies man’s divinizing o f himself in becoming the Lord o f the universe. The text gives us its true meaning: “ Let us make a name for ourselves lest we be scattered all over the earth” (11:5). Our author first o f all aims at the desire for prestige, expressed in gigantic monuments which were characteristic o f the rulers o f the time. It is incon­ testable that our author is less sensitive to the value o f civilization than to the temptations which it presents, and the outlook which he gives us is definitely pessi­ mistic. The city and the tower also signify the desire to no longer “ be scattered all over the earth” (11:4). Babel considers itself as the center o f the w o rld .7This recalls eAt the beginning o f the twentieth century, the Eiffel Tower also appeared as a promethean manifestation o f man’s power. 7Mircea Eliade, Images and Symbols (tr. Philip Mairet), 1961, pp. 51-56.

the section o f Chapter io in which Nimrod, the ruler o f Babel, asserts himself as Lord o f the world. In this light, the tower, which reaches to the sky, is a sign o f a visible gathering to the ends o f the earth, as an axis o f the world. Here the “ reassembly o f the wanderers” is still condemned insofar as it is an expression o f human pride. God alone will reassemble the scattered peoples o f Israel and all the nations with them, for, in messianic times, “ the mountain o f the House o f the Lord will be established over all the mountains and all nations will flow towards it” (Is 2:2). An analogous ambiguity is found in the resulting punishment, the dispersion o f the peoples and the con­ fusion o f tongues. Chapter 10 showed us the unfolding o f God’s creation in its marvelous diversity. Here, on the contrary, both o f these consequences are shown as the punishment o f sin. This shows that diversity, like unity, is ambiguous, in that it can be the expression o f the richness o f humanity or a sign o f its division.8 Unity was a gift o f God. Man made bad use o f it and God took it back. N ow , men, not understanding each other, will escape the temptation o f promethean con­ centration. However, diversity will tempt them in other ways, those o f antagonism and war. Good in itself, it will be the scource, even within Christ’s Church, o f misunderstandings and incompatibility which will give rise to division and schism. W ith the account o f the Tower o f Babel the pre­ history o f Salvation ends. This prehistory has com8Cf. K. Thieme

(1935), p. 9.

prised two great stages. First o f all, there was that o f the antediluvian patriarchs, from Abel to Henoch, which was concluded by the Flood which destroyed a humanity which was immersed in evil. But God had reserved something to himself in the person o f Noah. W ith him began the second stage, which we studied in these two chapters. Here, humanity is still immersed in evil. A second judgment will strike it, the destruction o f Babel. God will not destroy hum­ anity. But, as von R ad has said, henceforth the nations are on the outside o f God’s plan. God “ allows them to have their w ay” (Acts 14:16). Only at Pentecost, will men o f all nations hear once again “ the wonders o f God spoken in their own language” (Acts 2:11) and will the nations again enter into the plan o f sacred history. But in abandoning the nations to their own ways, God chose a savior from among them. From the heart o f the nations, from the race o f Sem, he placed Abraham aside for himself. The end o f Chapter 11 describes his genealogy (10-32). He belongs by right o f origin to the totality o f nations. But God separated him from these by his own free choice in order to place him at the beginning o f a new era. This new era will constitute a definitive advance. W ith Abraham, salvation history rightly begins. Thus, each o f these eras draws to a close with ajudgment o f a guilty man­ kind; however, at the heart o f this humanity flows a new beginning which is that o f a better humanity. It seems that we discover a law o f salvation history pre­

figuring and preparing what will happen when judg­ ment will strike the guilty race o f Abraham; however, a savior will be set aside in order to be the First Bom o f the new people o f God. But it is important that the successive stages o f salvation history, while bringing about new advance­ ment, do not abolish those which preceded it. Thus, the theology o f nations and cultures, which is the principal object o f our study o f these chapters, con­ tinues to be o f great interest to us. It allows us to realize the insertion o f God’s plan into the very structure not o f the cosmos but o f human history. It gives us the decisive elements o f the value o f human history, the value o f cultures and civilizations, in God’s plan and in the relationship o f this history to the plan o f God. W e are made aware o f the intrusion o f sin at the very center o f this history, and how cultures and cities are the scene o f collective sins. The fact that there is no reality which is indifferent to the religious realm is made clear; but all reality is essentially ambiguous, open to good and evil, in­ volved in a drama. And as cultures and cities are marked by sin, so also must they be marked by salvation.

Appendix:

Genesis I— III Chapter I The Story o f Creation

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; 2. the earth was waste and void; darkness cov­ ered the abyss, and the spirit o f God was stirring above the waters. 3. God said, “ Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good. 4. God sep­ arated the light from the darkness. 5. calling the light D ay and the darkness Night. And there was evening and morning, the first day. 6. Then God said, “ Let there be a firmament in the midst o f the waters to divide the waters.” And so it was. 7. God made the firmament, dividing the waters that were below the firmament from those that were above it. 8. God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and morning, the second day. 9. Then God said, “ Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place and let the dry land appear.” And so it was. 10. God called the dry land Earth and the assembled waters Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11. Then God said, “ Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and all

kind o f fruit trees that bear fruit containing their seed.’* And so it was. 12. The earth brought forth vegetation, every kind o f seed-bearing plant and all kinds o f trees that bear fruit containing their seed. God saw that it was good. 13. And there was evening and morning, the third day. 14. And God said, “ Let there be lights in the firma­ ment o f the heavens to separate day from night; let them serve as signs and for the fixing o f seasons, days and years; 15. let them serve as lights in the firma­ ment o f the heavens to shed light upon the earth.” So it was. 16. God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the smaller one to rule the night, and he made the stars. 17. God set them in the firmament o f the heavens to shed light upon the earth. 18. to rule the day and the night and to separate the fight from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 19. And there was evening and morning, the fourth day. 20. Then God said, “ Let the waters abound with fife, and above the earth let winged creatures fly below the firmament o f the heavens.” And so it was. 21. God created the great sea monsters, all kinds o f living, swimming creatures with which the waters abound and all kinds o f winged birds. God saw that it was good, 22. and God blessed them, saying, “ Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the waters o f the seas; and let the birds multiply on the earth.” 23. And there was evening and morning, the fifth day. 24. God said, “ Let the earth bring forth all kinds

o f living creatures: cattle, crawling creatures and wild animals,” And so it was. 25. God made all kinds o f wild beasts, every kind o f cattle, and every kind o f creature crawling on the ground. And God saw that it was good. 26. God said, “ Let us make mankind in our image and hkeness; and let them have dominion over the fish o f the sea, the birds o f the air, the cattle, over all the wild animals and every creature that crawls on the earth.” 27. God created man in his image. In the image o f God he created him. Male and female he created them. 28. Then God blessed them and said to them, “ Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish o f the sea, the birds o f the air, the cattle and all the animals that crawl on the earth.” 29. God also said, “ See, I give you every seed­ bearing plant on the earth and every tree which has seed-bearing fruit to be your food. 30. To every wild animal o f the earth, to every bird o f the air, and to every creature that crawls on the earth and has the breath o f life, I give the green plants for food.” And so it was. 31. God saw that all he had made was very good. And there was evening and morning, the sixth day. Chapter 2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all their array. 2. On the sixth day God finished the work

he had been doing. And he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had done. 3. God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it he rested from all his work o f creation. 4. This is the story o f the heavens and the earth at their creation. W hen the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5. there was not yet any field shrub on the earth nor had the plants o f the field sprung up, for the Lord God had sent no rain on the earth and there was no man to till the soil; 6. but a mist rose from the earth and watered all the surface o f the ground. 7. Then the Lord God formed man out o f the dust o f the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath o f life, and man became a living being. The Garden o f Eden 8. The Lord God planted a garden in Eden, to the east, and he put there the man he had formed. 9. The Lord God made to grow out o f the ground all kinds o f trees pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree o f life also in the midst o f the garden, and the tree o f knowledge o f good and evil. 10. A river rose in Eden watering the garden; and from there, it separated into four branches. 11. The name o f the first is Phison, which encircles all the land o f Hevila where there is gold. 12. And the gold o f that land is good; bdellium and onyx are there. 13. The name o f the second river is Gihon, which encircles all the land o f Chus. 14. The name o f the

third river is Tigris, which flows east o f Assur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. 15. The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden o f Eden to till it and to keep it. 16. And the Lord God commanded the man thus, “ From every tree o f the garden you may eat; 17. but from the tree o f the knowledge o f good and evil you must not eat, for the day you eat o f it, you must die.” 18. Then the Lord God said, “ It is not good that the man is alone; I will make him a helper like himself.” 19. W hen the Lord God had formed out o f the ground all the beasts o f the field and the birds o f the air, he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; for that which the man called each o f them would be its name. 20. The man named all the cattle, all the birds o f the air and all the beasts o f the field; but he found no helper like himself. 21. The Lord God cast the man into a deep sleep and, while he slept, took one o f his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22. And the rib which the Lord God took from the man, he made into a woman, and brought her to him. 23. Then the man said, “ She now is bone o f my bone, and flesh o f my flesh; she shall be called Woman, for from man she has been taken.” 24. For this reason a man leaves his father and mother, and clings to his wife, and the two become one flesh. 25. Both the man and his wife were naked, but they felt no shame.

Chapter 3 Temptation and Fall N ow the serpent was more cunning than any beast o f the field which the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “ Did God say, ‘You shall not eat o f any tree o f the garden’ ?” 2. The woman answered the serpent, “ O f the fruit o f all the trees in the garden we may eat; 3. but ‘O f the fruit o f the tree in the middle o f the garden,’ God said, ‘you shall not eat, neither shall you touch it, lest you die’. ” 4. But the serpent said to the woman, “ No, you shall not die; 5. for God knows that when you eat o f it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6. N ow the woman saw that the tree was good for food, pleasing to the eyes, and desirable for the knowledge it would give. She took o f its fruit and ate it, and also gave some to her husband and he ate. 7. Then the eyes o f both were opened, and they realized that they were naked; so they sewed figleaves together and made themselves coverings. 8. When they heard the sound o f the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool o f the day, the man and his wife hid themselves from the Lord God among the trees o f the garden. 9. But the Lord God called the man and said to him, “ Where are you?” 10. And he said, “ I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid.” 11. Then he said, “ W ho told you

that you were naked? You have eaten then o f the tree o f which I commanded you not to eat.” 12. The man said, “ The woman you placed at my side gave me fruit from the tree and I ate.” 13. Then the Lord God said to the woman,“ W hy have you done this?” The woman said, “ The serpent deceived me and I , ate. 99

Punishment; the Promise o f a Redeemer 14. Then the Lord God said to the serpent: “ Be­ cause you have done this, cursed are you among all animals, and among all beasts o f the field; on your belly shall you crawl, dust shall you eat, all the days o f your life. 15. I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed; he shall crush your head, and you shall lie in wait for his heel.” 16. To the woman he said: “ I will make great your distress in childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children; for your husband shall be your longing, though he have dominion over you.” 17. And to Adam he said, “ Because you have listened to your wife, and have eaten o f the tree o f which I commanded you not to eat: Cursed be the ground because o f you; in toil shall you eat o f it all the days o f your life; 18. thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you, and you shall eat the plants o f the field. 19. In the sweat o f your brow you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, since out o f it you were taken; for dust you are and unto dust you shall

return.” 20. (And the man called his wife Eve because she was the mother o f all the living.) \

Adam and Eve Expelled from the Garden 21. The Lord God made garments o f skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22. And he said, “ Indeed! the man has become like one o f us, knowing good and evil! And now perhaps he will put forth his hand and take also from the tree o f life and eat, and live forever!” 23. Therefore the Lord God put him out o f the garden o f Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24. He drove out the man; and at the east o f the garden o f Eden he placed the Cherubim, and the flaming sword, which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree o f life.

For Further Reading Books A nderson , B ernhard W . Understanding the Old Testament. Englewood Cliffs, N ew Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1957.

A uzou, G eorges. The Word of God (tr. Josefa Thornton). Saint Louis: Herder, i960. ------- The Formation of the Bible (tr. Josefa Thornton). Saint Louis: Herder, 1963. B ewer , J ulius A ugust . The Literature of the Old Testament. N ew York: Columbia University Press, 1962. B onhoeffer, D ietrich . Creation and Fall: a Theolog­ ical Interpretation of Genesis 1-3 (tr. John C. Fletcher). N ew York: Macmillan, 1959. B ouyer , L ouis . The Meaning of Sacred Scripture (tr. Mary Perkins Ryan). Notre Dame: University o f Notre Dame Press, 1958. C astelot , J o h n J. Meet the Bible. Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1960-61. G elin ,

A lbert. The Key Concepts of the Old Testament (tr. George Lamb). N ew York: Sheed and Ward, 1955. 103

G o ttw ald , N orman K arol . A Light to the Nations. N ew York: Harper, 1959. H auret , C harles. Beginnings: Genesis and Modern Science (tr. E. P. Emmans). Dubuque: PrioryPress, 1955. H essler, B ertram . The Bible in the Light of Modern Science. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, i960. H u n t , Ignatius . Understanding the Bible. N ew York: Sheed and Ward, 1962. Im schoot , P aul v a n . Theologie de ΓAncien Testament. Toumai: Declee, 1954. M ackenzie , J ohn L. The Two-Edged Sword. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1956.

------- Myths and Realities: Studies in Biblical Theology. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., 1963. M oriarty , Frederick L. Introducing the Old Testa­ ment. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Co., i960. V aw ter , B ruce . A Path through Genesis. N ew York: Sheed and Ward, 1956. W right, G eorge E rnest and R eginald H. Fuller. The Book of the Acts of God. Garden City, N ew York: Doubleday, 1957.

Periodicals A lbertson , J. “ Genesis 1 and the Babylonian Creation M yth,” Thought, 37:226-44; Summer, 1962.

------- “ La Creation: les sciences modernes au service de la foi,” Vie Spirituelle, 104:294-321; March, 1962. B ro w n , R aym o n d E. “ Our N ew Approach to the Bible,” Guide, 171:3-10; October, 1962. B runs , J. E. “ Depth-Psychology and the Fall,” Daedalus, 87:37-64; 1958. C oppens, J. “ L ’interpretation sexuelle du Peche du Paradis,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 33:506#; 1957. D ubarle , A. M. “ History and Myth in Genesis,” Theology Digest, 6:95-97; Spring, 1958. ------- “ Original Sin in Genesis,” Downside Review, 76:223-49; Summer 1958 (also see Cross Currents 8:345-62; Fall, 1958). H auret , C. “ Genesis and Modern Science,” (tr. E. P. Emmans), Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 19:406#; 1957. H u n t , Ignatius . “ The Book o f Genesis in the Twen­ tieth Century,” Way; December, 1963. L ambert , W . G. “ N ew Light on the Babylonian Flood,” Journal of Semitic Studies, 5:113-25; i960. M ackenzie , J. L. “ Literary Characteristics o f Genesis 2-3,” Theology Digest, 6:19-23; Winter, 1958. O ’N eill, J. “ Bible and Evolution,” Scripture, 11:6-22; January, 1959. R ich ard s , H. J. “ Babylonian Parallels and Scriptural Acrobatics (some thoughts on Genesis I-X I),” Clergy Review, 43:393-403; July, 1958.

------- “ The Forbidden Fruit,” Clergy Review, 44:264-70; May, 1959. R ow e , S. “ An Exegetical Approach to Genesis 3:15,” Marian Studies, 12:49-79; 1961. Sharp , R . “ Meaning o f Genesis: review o f G. Von R ad’s Genesis,” Life of the Spirit, 16:244-49; December, 1961. Shea , G. W . “ The Protoevangelium in the Light o f the Magisterium: Genesis 3:15,” Marian Studies, 12:80-110; 1961. Stuhlmueller, C. “ Genesis and the Secret o f Creation” , Bible Today, 1:6-12; October, 1962. ------- “ Genesis: Yahwist Tradition,” Jubilee, 10:16-20; January, 1963. U nger, D. “ Mary is the Woman o f the first-gospel (Gen. 3:15),” Marianum, 18:62-79; 1956. U nger, M. F. “ Rethinking the Genesis Account o f Creation,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 115:27-35; 1958.

PS 3957703 -3 JT

i l

BS1235.2 .D313 Danielou, Jean. In the beginning ..

97676

j Dani^lcu In th e

T H EO LO G Y L IB R A R Y SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY A T CLAREMONT CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA

C H A LLEN G E BO O KS are original paperbacks which offer penetrating insights into the new horizons being discovered through modern approaches to theology, biblical research, the liturgy, and historical reassessment. W ritten with an eye to the needs of the twentieth century, these books, never before published, will stimulate fruitful and honest discussion among all who are encouraged by recent progress and who welcome an encounter with new and productive thinking.

About this book Modern biblical scholarship has only slowly been making headway against the still widespread fundamentalism of the past generations. But the men who reworked the superstitious and animistic fables that form the raw material of the creation account in Genesis were really quite sophisticated, almost scientific demythologizers, who were “ making sport of the saving power of snakes and trees.” W ith all the resources of recent biblical scholarship, Pere Danielou makes this convincingly clear in his usual brilliant fashion. He shows that these first chapters are a great theological enterprise which examines human weakness and sinfulness in depth and looks death in the face, taking its full meaning from its end rather than its beginning— Jesus Christ, the Lord of the new creation.

Jean Danielou, S.J. Born in Paris in 1905 and educated at Sainte-Croix, Neuilly and the Sorbonne. Became a Jesuit in 1929 and after further studies was ordained in 1938, serving in the French A ir Force during 1939-40. Co-founder of the “ Collection Sources Chretiennes” and the Review Dieu vivant. Holds doctorates in philosophy and theology, is a professor at the Institut Catholique in Paris, and has played a prominent part in the liturgical and ecumenical movements. Many of his books have been published in English by Helicon.

HELICON BALTIMORE 21202