A Multidisciplinary Contextualized Analysis of Select Passages From Genesis: Evening (עֶ֤רֶב) and Morning (בֹ֖קֶר)
A Multidisciplinary Contextualized Analysis of Select Passages From Genesis: Evening (עֶ֤רֶב) and Morning (בֹ֖קֶר)
Despite the aforementioned analysis, the traditional argument for the “calendar day” interpretation of “Yom” (יום) is Genesis 1:5b which reads, “There was evening (“erev” עֶ֤רֶב) and there was morning (“boker” בֹ֖קֶר), the first [era] (“yom” יום).” Each of the six eras of creation includes this closer. A casual reading of Genesis 1 would likely lead one to conclude this is loosely referring to the passing of a day. And that the calendar day in Jewish traditional timekeeping begins at sunset (also “erev” עֶ֤רֶב), these verses are cited as the inspiration for that practice.
However, this utilization of the terms “erev” and “boker” is unique to the first chapter of Genesis. They are rarely coincident, and even then are never used together to describe the structure of a day. One might argue that the Genesis author simply decided to describe the passage of a day in that fashion. But considering that Leviticus 23:32 explicitly defines that ceremonial day is to take place “from evening to evening”, and that tradition claims the Pentateuch had one author (Moses), it is curious that there would be such a strange difference in word selection.
Those terms “erev” (עֶ֤רֶב) and “boker”(בֹ֖קֶר) in Hebrew are used specifically for the period of dusk and that of daybreak. And if taken literally, defining a period of time from “evening” to “morning” is only describing the nighttime portion of the 24 hour day. This peculiarity defies the common view that, “And there was evening ( עֶ֤רֶב “erev”) and there was morning (“boker” בֹ֖קֶר),” is a symbolic reference to the traditional observation of days implying a different meaning entirely:
Work by day, rest by night: a “yom”
Although these Genesis passages are often referenced as the biblical rationale for the Jewish dusk-to-dusk timekeeping tradition, the practice may very well have simply originated organically. Even today, it simply is practical for reasons of personal safety to return to and secure one’s home before sunset. And as for the traditional observation of the Sabbath, celebrations, and holidays, again there is a practicality of ending regular work and retreating to a place of safety or community before darkness falls.
That isn’t to say there was no activity after sunset. The evening meal was often at night as were community celebrations. Throughout the Bible, day-long or multi-day observations such as the Sabbath, Passover, Sukkot, and others are prescribed to take place “from evening ( עֶ֤רֶב “erev”) to evening ( עֶ֤רֶב “erev”)” (Leviticus 23:32). This is a clear suggestion for how to demarcate days.
But this is not the wording used in Genesis 1. Nor was the “evening to evening” calendar day defined anywhere in the bible outside of the observation of ceremonies or the Sabbath. There does not seem to be any compelling reason for the story of the “Yom” of creation to be associated with the Jewish observation of the start and finish of a calendar day.
So why “boker” (בֹ֖קֶר)? Why is it not “from evening ( עֶ֤רֶב “erev”) to evening ( עֶ֤רֶב “erev”)” as all other calendar day observances are? First it is important to realize we are not dealing with literal calendar days throughout Genesis 1 as discussed previously. But that does leave several possibilities:
As is practical for humans, it is during the daytime that most work is performed. At evening, one returns home for rest or recreation until morning. That the “evening to morning” implication is “and”-ed to each “Yom” implies what was being described in the previous verses took place during the “morning to evening” or daytime period. After the creative workday for God had ended, the remainder of the “yom” may have been a period of respite. This linear reading of the verses would make God’s creative practice resemble that of the common man. He works during the daytime and, after seeing that what He has done is complete, retires from the evening until morning which rounds out the regular “day”.
This oddly enough implies that the “yom” concludes at daybreak, not sunset which goes against tradition. Of course this hypothesis does lean into the calendar day mythos which is the antithesis of the hypothesis to which I subscribe. However, it would be in line with a highly linear reading of scripture with daytime being implied by action and nighttime being mentioned as a closer.
The suggestion of periods of significant development or change followed by periods of relative constancy is evident in the epochs of cosmic evolution as supported by deep space observation as well as biological evolution. The theory of punctuated equilibrium proposed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould in 1972 is based on the observation that there are extended periods with little morphological change punctuated by intermittent evolutionary bursts. While evolutionary science suggests several reasons for sudden shifts in evolutionary pressure, the result is a sudden period of notable diversification followed by one of evolutionary rest.
Anti-Entropic Implications
Like other terms in Hebrew, “boker” (בֹ֖קֶר) and “erev” ( עֶ֤רֶב ) shae root meanings with other words which may imply additional context. “Erev” suggests a state of mixed or unidentifiable homogeneousness which is analogous to the difficulty of defining objects at night. Exodus 12:38 and Numbers 11:4 suport the Biblical use of “erev” (עֵ֫רֶב variant) translated to mean “mixed”.
“Boker”, if following “erev” in the aforementioned context, would likely translate to read “clarification” or “distinction”. I am not aware of any use of “boker” (בֹ֖קֶר) in the Bible being commonly translated with any meaning other than “morning”, however there is no use of the term in conjunction with “erev” in the unique phrasing and context of Genesis 1.
Therefore, translating Genesis 1:5b to read, “There was mixture (“erev” עֶ֤רֶב) and there was clarification (“boker” בֹ֖קֶר), the first era (“yom” יום),” is entirely valid.
This process is not unlike how our universe of homogeneous primordial energy (Higgs Boson or otherwise) transformed into photons and a variety of other fundamental particles. And how those particles gathered into the atoms and masses which absorbed many of those same photons to begin the cosmic dark age. Then how the fine imperfections in this field of particles precipitated into galaxies and solar systems. And, finally, how chemicals in at least one of these systems organized into ever evolving forms of life. Our existence has been a process of spontaneous organization from homogeneous states into increasingly defined organization.
Transitioning from “erev” to “boker” mirrors current cosmological theory which suggests the universe was homogeneous but distilled into the zoo of particles we observe today. And for a brief time the universe was full of light to the point of being opaque, but in time the light was absorbed to the point of providing clarity to space. This is evidenced by the CMB and is the prevalent view of the early universe. This also suggests that this very specific usage of “erev” followed by the scarcely used “boker” (בֹ֖קֶר) describes incremental discrimination and order being applied.
What is the stronger interpretation?
The more relational “Work by day, rest by night” interpretation reflects scientific truth in the punctuated equilibrium theory of biologica evolution and cosmic epochs. The terms “erev”, “boker”, and “yom” as commonly translated appeal to this truthful yet metaphoric interpretation. Additionally, this leverages a strictly serial reading of the verses in Genesis 1 which appears to be the case throughout the Bible.
The “Anti-Entropic” interpretation makes the case for using less considered translations for “erev”, “boker”, and “yom”. These valid alternates literally describe a change from homogeneous energy to organized systems over indeterminate periods. Literarily, this makes the phrase, “There was “erev” and there was “boker”,” a sub-subscript for each “yom”. This kind of casual nonlinearity is generally not found in the Bible, and is also a reason why the traditional translation does not make sense.
In short, both translations have their appeal. Whether the preference is for a compelling simile or something more scientifically literal, they both have technical merits. In either case, these interpretations on a straight reading considering the original Hebrew are clearly more applicable than the traditional symbolic interpretations.