Whither the Creation Story?

There is no greater theological separation between the ancient and the modern critical approach to biblical texts than in their valuation of the creation story in Genesis 1-3. Ancient Israel began its own particular story with two stories that connected Israel's story (from the election of Abraham to the fall of Judah) with the common origin -- and plight! -- of all people. In the days of Jesus and Paul, these stories were the primary sacred mysteries.

For this reason the author of the Fourth Gospel began the Jesus story with a re-writing of the first words of Genesis that portrayed the pre-Incarnate Christ as God, the Word, and the primordial Light that illuminated the cosmos before there were celestial lights; Paul believed Jesus the Christ was the second Adam who undid the problems introduced by the first couple in Genesis 3; and the Colossians Christ-hymn (1:15-20) appears to be a reflection on how Jesus filled up the first words of the Bible (be-reshit) with meaning: "by him were all things created...he is before all things...by him all things consist." Christ is the Head, the Summit, the Fullness -- each term a reflection of the Hebrew term reshit ("beginning" in our English versions of Gen 1:1).

The problem is that modern critical scholarship views these stories as two add-ons that were not part of Israel's core expression of faith. Therefore, in textbooks the creation stories are relegated to late chapters, far removed from the place that ancient Israel assigned them in the grand drama of scripture. For example, a 2006 OT textbook, published by St. Mary's Press and marketed to Catholic colleges, begins its analysis of the story with Genesis 12, the Abraham story, which is the beginning of the specific story of Israel; this is chapter two of the textbook. The creation stories are buried in chapter thirteen (well over 300 pages removed from the analysis of Genesis), following the theology of creation in Proverbs and Sirach!

I understand why biblical scholars do this: they re-arrange the biblical story according to the widely accepted critical reconstruction of the development of OT literature. Election and Exodus are primary expressions of ancient Israel's faith; creation, as it is narrated in Genesis 1-2 is not even secondary.

The primary problem is that this rearrangement results in bad theology: the NT was written in the light of a biblical story that began with the stories of creation; the NT storyworld -- i.e. what was possible and impossible -- was dependent on the creation story. Moreover, the problems of the person that required fixing -- by Christ -- were the consequences of Genesis 3.

The primary result is the separation of Jesus' story from its place in the biblical drama. Christ cannot fix what was not broken. This is not a happy result for Christian theology. Our sacred story is symmetrical, for the conflict that emerges in Genesis 3 is resolved only in the Apocalypse, with the descent of the new Edenic city of God.

Nor is the re-arrangement positive for ancient Israel's understanding of itself. It is as if Israel's story cannot stand on its own, but must be reconfigured according to later critical criteria. The irony is that in attempting to salvage Israel's story, scholars have judged that ancient Israel was wrong about its connection to all of humanity. Without Genesis 1-3, the biblical story is missing most elements of its storyworld. The story does not begin with the cosmos as a positive order created on purpose. Finally, there is no image of the human person created in the image of God and formed from the earth. [5.27.08]