Literary Structure/Divisions of chapter and verse/Progression of narrative scope

A Multidisciplinary Contextualized Analysis of Select Passages From Genesis V2.0

[This is an excerpt from an exhaustive personal study of most of the first 9 chapters of the book of Genesis. This is a vastly expanded effort from the original version that can currently be found here downloadable for free. The purpose of this exercise is to compare a non-symbolic literal reading of the text to our current understanding of language, paleontology, and the physical sciences. Constructive discussion on the merits of this study is encouraged!]

Literary Structure of Genesis

Among historical, scientific, and linguistic considerations, one must also consider the literary structure employed. This structure may not become apparent to the occasional reader or those listening from the congregation. Consequently, many people are exposed to the Bible in short segments and typically experience verses quoted as one-liners. Analysis and commentary may also be done in a segmented fashion on a verse-by-verse basis pigeonholed within the arbitrarily assigned chapter divisions. These selective and typically paced approaches risk overlooking complete story arcs as well as literary patterns that extend past the breaks.

Some interpretations of the first several chapters of Genesis betray such selective analysis. This is evidenced by the popular view that the heavens and earth are created and exist in verse 1:1. However when compared to the literary patterns found throughout the rest of Genesis, there is a clear structure to the creation story which suggests a different interpretation.

Genesis 1 through 2:4a is arranged as follows:

• 1:1 Headnote.

  • 1:2 Exposition.

• 1:3 Declaration. [light and darkness]

  • 1:4a Acknowledgement (observation)

  • 1:4b Action.

  • 1:5 Naming. “Yom” 1

• 1:6 Declaration. [the expanse, sky]

  • 1:7 Action.

  • 1:8 Naming. “Yom” 2

• 1:9 Declaration. [earth and seas]

  • 1:10a Naming

  • 1:10b Acknowledgement (observation)

• 1:11 Declaration [grains and fruits]

  • 1:12 Acknowledgement (observation)

  • 1:13 “Yom” 3.

• 1:14-15 Declaration [sun, moon, stars]

  • 1:16-17 Action

  • 1:18 Acknowledgement (observation)

  • 1:19 “Yom” 4

• 1:20 Declaration [sea and air creatures]

  • 1:21a Action

  • 1:21b Acknowledgement (observation)

  • 1:22 Acknowledgement (blessing)

  • 1:23 “Yom” 5

• 1:24 Declaration [earth creatures]

  • 1:25a Action

  • 1:25b Acknowledgement (observation)

• 1:26 Declaration [mankind]

  • 1:27 Action

  • 1:28-30 Acknowledgement (blessing)

  • 1:31a Acknowledgement (observation)

  • 1:31b “Yom” 6

• 2:1 Conclusion

  • 2:2 “Yom” 7 for completion and rest

  • 2:3 Acknowledgement (blessing)

• 2:4 Subscript. “Yom” of creation.

When considering this structure, it is clear that no change or action occurs prior to God’s declaration. The first action of creation therefore takes place in verse 3 with the declaration of light, not verse 1 as is often the interpretation.

There is also the case of God’s naming of new creations. The term for “heavens” in Genesis 1:1 is “Shamayim” (שָׁמַ֫יִם) which states, ”God created the shamayim and the earth.” Yet the term does not return until verse 8 after the firmament is formed when “God called the expanse shamayim.” The “Shamayim” as named is not extant until such time that he names it in verse 8. Therefore, the verse 1:1 reference is either an introduction or the term used in a different context.

The case is the same for “earth” or “‘eres” (אֶ֔רֶץ) which has broad implied meanings and is used in multiple contexts throughout Genesis 1. However, what we know as the “earth” is not named until 1:10. These examples further support the 1:1 headnote theory.

Additionally, this format of using a headnote or exposition preceding a list of information which may be closed with a subscript is found throughout the Bible. A few strong examples of this pattern are in Genesis chapters 10, 36, and 1 Chronicles 3:1-9. But one might argue that the literary pattern found in those verses is strictly used for family genealogies as opposed to narrative sections. The three examples given are among roughly 30 such lists found in the Old Testament.

Interestingly, Genesis 2:4a declares that Genesis 1-2:3 is a genealogy. It is meant to be, “the history of the generations (“toledot” תוֹלְד֧וֹת) of the heavens and of the earth when they were created.” There is no mention of Adam or any other person, but implies it is the genealogy of the products of creation.

The Hebrew word “Toledot” (תוֹלְד֧וֹת) found here is the same word used for “generations” in family genealogies throughout the bible. Although in most cases it is used to headnote a genealogy, in the case of Genesis 10 it is an example of its use in both the headnote and the subscript. Considering this, not only is the creation story formatted similarly to a genealogy, but it explicitly declares itself to be one.

Treating the creation story as though it were a genealogy of the universe may seem unusual, but it is logical from the standpoint that each creative act is dependent upon the completion of the previous one. This also supports the case for “Creatio ex potentia” which is discussed elsewhere. Whether empirically or narratively causal, as with any genealogy there can be no child without the actions of their parents before them. It would be the original grandfather paradox if fish existed before the seas were formed to contain them.

The consistent pattern of declaration before action, the delayed naming of key elements, and the explicit ‘toledot’ framing all confirm that Genesis 1:1 introduces the creation narrative rather than initiating it. In other words, this inaugural verse is a headnote to the narrative and not itself the first “Work” of God.

Divisions of chapter and verse

If the story of creation is from 1:1 through 2:4a as suggested in this study, why is there a chapter break between the 6th and 7th “Yamim”? Considering the ubiquity of chapter breaks and verse markers in nearly all Bibles, it may come as a surprise that they didn’t exist in any biblical scripture until relatively recently.

The chapter designations now used were added by Stephen Langton, an Archbishop of Canterbury, around 1227 AD. Several hundred years later in 1551, verse numbers were assigned by the French printer Robert Estienne. These arbitrary divisions and reference markers, although very convenient, were never part of the original Biblical writings. Despite whatever decision-making process was utilized by the aforementioned individuals, there is no theological support for those chapter or verse designations.

Additionally, ancient Hebrew scripture did not include punctuation or paragraph breaks. Such amendments were added nearly a thousand years after the earliest known copies of Genesis. The Pentateuch was at first written as a flow of continuous words. Accents and vowels were added by scribes in Torah copies made over time in an attempt to preserve what they understood to be the intended meanings of words and contextual flow. This included markers like the "petuhah" (open paragraph) and "setumah" (closed paragraph).

Where such breaks are considered important in literature to compartmentalize the context of what is being described, how one bundles sentences or sections of a manuscript can subtly change the context. A phrase meant to be an appendix to the thoughts or events of one narrative may end up being read as a prefix to the next depending on the placement of the break.

Further exacerbating such editorial confusion are liberties taken by many paraphrased and study oriented translations. For example, the New International Version includes editorial section headers not found in original texts along with margin notes throughout. These well intentioned inclusions are certainly useful in enhancing accessibility and trying to add context, but may rely on popular interpretation over literal translation. I believe that the benefits of these editorial enhancements have largely outweighed the potential drawbacks. However, when trying to realize the Bible with technical scrutiny, it is best to recognize that these additions are interpretive. Proper context requires consideration of potential translation variations and format interpretations of original language versions of scripture.

The context of Genesis 2:4 is notably impacted by these medieval period chapter divisions. That “the generations of the heavens and of the earth” is stated after the chapter break is historically inconsequential to how the text should be interpreted, but implies that it belongs to a separate narrative. The first chapter concluding with the end of the sixth [era] likely reflects Langton favoring the common interpretation that verse 2:4 is part of the story of Adam, and that Chapter 2 serves as a flashback elaboration of the 6th day in Genesis 1.

However, if it were the case that 2:4 is regarding Adam, it would be the only story in any book of the entire Bible to use a flashback elaboration literary device. Within each of the books of the Bible, the narrative is overwhelmingly linear. Also, it would be the only genealogy that would not name in its headnote the individuals to which it pertains, Genesis 5 being an appropriate example.

Given the Bible’s linear narrative style and the consistent naming in genealogies, placing Genesis 2:4 with Adam’s story introduces unnecessary inconsistencies with the broader creation account.

Progression of narrative scope

Throughout the Bible, within any given book, there is never an out of sequence telling of events. Although some books may duplicate the accounts of others (Kings and Chronicles, the New Testament Gospels), the narrative within each book is strictly serialized.

If we maintain that the formation of Adam takes place after the 7th day, we are left with a clear progression of narrative scope. As we read through each “Yom” (יום‎), the products of creation are at first nonliving things followed by progressively more complex yet limited populations of life. Although it is suggested that God communicated with these different populations through his blessings, it is only when Adam is formed that the narrative becomes personal and singular.

Considering the physical scale of each of God’s declarations, a pattern emerges.

1. The entire universe filled with the first light.

2. The condensation of nebulas that form into galaxies like our own.

3. Planetary bodies of our solar system and main sequence ignition of our sun

4. Major geological features of the planet Earth and Vegetation

5. Global habitation including sea creatures who can travel all of the oceans and waterways, and air creatures capable of uninhibited travel of great distances over land.

6. Landlocked animals including mankind who are movement restricted by geography.

7. An individual named human in a specific location.

When I first imagined a visual interpretation of this progression, a “Space-Centric” perspective or “zooming” progression which takes a narrowing omniscient view came to mind. The process of creation would be seen at first from a broad cosmic scope narrowing in field as each “Yom” passes until becoming fixed on a single person. Since a comparable visual to this has been portrayed in various media (fiction and nonfiction), this is what I believe would first come to mind for those trying to visualize Genesis.

However, this “Space-Centric” perspective requires one to have a concept of the workings of the universe beyond Earth as well as a view of it from high above. Only a century ago this may have been a challenge to explain to the average person, let alone for people who lived in earlier millennia. With little understanding of outer space beyond the view from the ground, and only a limited realization of the earth’s scope from its surface, there is no ancient frame of reference for such a cinematic perspective. Only through cartography and mathematics could one hope to get an artist's impression of the view from far above the earth, and this would be difficult to express to the average person at that time.

Trying to consider what I would know if I didn’t know what I now know, it seemed unlikely the author would have been trying to describe the view from space, but the view from Earth (or at least where Earth would end up).

Being that a key premise of this exercise is the context at the time Genesis was written, I focus instead on what I call an “Earth-centric” perspective. This is the visual experience one might expect if observing creation from the point in the expanse or the “location” ("Erets" ארץ) at which the earth will form and continuing from the Earth’s surface from that point. The progress of each “Yom” is described from the visual perspective of a witness “on the scene” as opposed to an omniscient observer.

I believe this “Earth-Centric” interpretation better accommodates the knowledge and experience base of ancient people which is the primary focus of this exercise. Concepts of deep space, a spherical Earth, and celestial bodies the way we now understand them may have been problematic as such knowledge would not likely be universal at that time. Persons of this era would have never been any substantial distance above the ground themselves, and for practical purposes would have little desire to know the shape or circumference of this planet. Furthermore, several verses in the Creation story use a ground-level reference in descriptions.