The Second Account of Creation: The Subjective Definition of Man

This week we begin the third lecture in the Theology of the Body series. It will focus on the second account of Creation, which the Holy Father calls “Subjective” and “Psychological.” To reiterate, this is not to say it is untrue, but rather that it is concerned with the experiences of Adam and Eve.

The Holy Father begins delineating these two because he would like us to join him in seeing that the First chapter establishes truths whose conclusions we may not violate by conjecture through reading the second chapter or otherwise. As with all good theology, he is establishing foundational groundwork, by which we may come to discern not only his line of thought, but to think along the same lines through careful attention to his method.

Pope John Paul II’s program is to show that the second chapter of Genesis is the revealed experiences of what is established in the first chapter. Therefore, he establishes the first chapter as objective, a guiding principle, a foundational lens, and the second as that from which we shall derive the experiences of Adam and Eve and therefore ascertain the “values” which we previously discussed when we talked about the second lecture. In so doing he has established a “control” or an axiom, a foundational principle or set of principles by which he can guide our subjective reading of the texts.

By reading in this way, he has established a set of rules by which we cannot misinterpret wildly the texts, or miss the point by veering off into miscellaneous details which are not consequential the points I raised previously which I will repeat here for the sake of clarity as we move on.

1) Man is a creature, His universe is established by God

2) Man is created in the Image of this God

3) Male and female both share in the divine image

4) This Divine Image is somehow irreducible from the maleness and femaleness it is established in

These I think are the 4 main points of the Holy Father’s reading of the text, which of course he will add detail to later on. I think these four are sufficient.

Anyways, let’s move along and see how the Holy Father lets the “objective” first chapter guide his reading of the “subjective” second chapter.

The Holy father has established an objective reading, the 4 “values” I listed above which we are to carry as we read the second chapter of Genesis. Yet, he will expound on these values through their subjective appropriation in the experiences in the lives of Adam and Eve.

The Holy Father admits that experience is subjective, meaning there’s no codified universally binding manner in which we experience the goods and norms of Creation. Yet, as we internalize these in a subjective manner, these are still very good, and apply universally and appeal to our experience in a general objective sense. The values are true, yet their truth is apprehended experientially, “subjectively” if you will.

The Holy Father has a phrase (Typical profundity) which has, to be honest, left me a bit confused. I will present it here, and we will work through it. “…we should note that the entire text, in formulating the truth about man, amazes us with its typical profundity, different from that of the first chapter of Genesis.” (To be honest, this whole section left me feeling in over my head, so i talked to some Catholic friends who are in university studying the TOB and also emailed Michael Waldstein who translated the Theology of the Body recently under the title: Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body.) I got some answers later on on this particular phrase, as I kept reading, and rereading, but it took a while to get it to sink in.

Let’s do a short aside, as I wait in real-time for some answers. I guess it’s nice to finally hit a wall. I mean, I don’t suppose to know of master everything in the first reading, but I find myself genuinely stumped about how to appropriate this phrase. It’s humbling, and I appreciate that, because it reminds me that the transformative process is a joy both in visible growth and a trial in stretching oneself.

(20 minutes of real time later…)

I suppose after re-reading for about 20 minutes in real-time I now have an answer which satisfies me. It might not be right, but if that’s the case I will update later. I suppose the “typical profundity” which the Holy Father lays before us means the distinctive type of profundity. I believe he means it amazes us with how profound it is, and what type of profundity it is. I suppose this would make sense because of what follows and also because of the Holy Father’s intention to highlight what he as termed the Psychological aspect of the text.

(About one hour real-time later…)

Dr. Michael Waldstein replied later the evening this was written with: “He is saying that Genesis 2-3 has a different kind of depth than Genesis 1. He does not want to anticipate what the distinctive depth is, but he explains it later.” (emphasis added, because I’m happy I was right. Yes, it may seem totally logical to some of you; it hit me like a wall, and forced me to slow down.) I liked it though, caused me to pay more attention.

(rewind to about 20 minutes real time later…)

Pope John Paul II says “It can be said that it is a profundity that is of a nature particularly subjective, and therefore, in a certain sense, psychological.” The reason he draws on the word psychological here is to establish a framework through which we engage the actual experiences of Adam and Eve as recorded by the text. Further, the text does really profoundly establish a sort of psychological framework for itself, by entering into the intimate details of the creation of the man and the woman. This text fills in the gaps on a personal level. The Holy Father says, “The second chapter of Genesis constitutes, in a certain manner, the most ancient description and record of man’s self-knowledge.” To be certain, the Pope is aware that the intent of the text is not a comprehensive psychology of man, but he clarifies this in the blockquote which will end our examination of this section:

A reflection in depth on this text—through the whole archaic form of the narrative, which manifests its primitive mythical character(1)—provides us in nucleo with nearly all the elements of the analysis of man, to which modern, and especially contemporary philosophical anthropology is sensitive. It could be said that Genesis 2 presents the creation of man especially in its subjective aspect. Comparing both accounts, we conclude that this subjectivity corresponds to the objective reality of man created “in the image of God.”

Pope John Paul II is saying that this second chapter of Genesis provides us with a core understanding of the elements which form a psychology. It provides us with a certain psychological and philosophical understanding of what humanity is. It provides us with a grasp at the mind and soul of the humans and their interactions. This will presently develop into the third chapter which is the first testimony of human conscience. The Holy Father concludes affirming that this second chapter corresponds as in-depth revelation to what has come before in the first chapter.

Next week we will focus on what Waldstein has clued us in on for the following post, “[The distinctive depth provided in Genesis 2-3] is the focus on the experience of the body,” and particularly shame.

The Biblical Account of Creation Analyzed (Part 2)

This is part two of our examination of the second article of the Theology of the Body by our holy father among the saints of the Church, Pope John Paul the Great. Anyways as we move on with our examination We’re going to look a bit more closely at the Genesis accounts and what are termed the “first” and “second” creation narratives.

Various Accounts of Man’s Creation

In the second address of the Theology of the Body, Pope John Paul II opens up a foundation for discussion by looking at the two different interpretations of creation present in the first three chapters of Genesis. If you were to re-read the first three chapters of Genesis (which everyone in this study should do if they wish to actively participate in this study), you’d notice that there are two different creation accounts as relates both to the world, and to human beings. The first is in the first chapter of Genesis sets what most of us know as the typical creation story in seven days. However, this first text implies that God made Adam and Eve together at the end of the sixth day.

The second account is the chapter two narrative which is less developed stylistically, linguistically and otherwise, and is held to be the more ancient of the two creation stories. The first chapter is a well ordered and intentional summary of creation and holds phrases about man being created in the image of God, and after his likeness. Whereas the second chapter of the Genesis which is called the ‘Yahwist’ account because it uses the Divine name instead of the first chapter’s ‘Elohim.’ The Holy Father approaches with these two readings because he will make a set of points about the first account which is estimated to have been written later and put at the front of the book.

The Holy Father repeatedly makes the point that this first account of Creation in Genesis 1 is theological and objective. He does not mean objective as in truth opposed to subjective opinion, though this is sometimes how the terms are read. He means that this first narrative establishes the foundational way we should read the text of the second chapter. It is the epistemological(meaning it establishes the way we should understand the) framework for what is to follow.

What he means by theological is that this text establishes a theology, it establishes a framework for how to read. However, and perhaps as importanly is the other implied point that this text is theological in that it establishes ‘Creation from God’s point of view‘ a term he will use later in the text. Also, as we look at this text (Genesis 1) it establishes the “what, where, when and how of Creation.” This text also clearly in a few ways intentionally pauses before the creation of man and woman. This account sets up a vision for what the Holy Father says in a rather surprising phrase “The Creator seems to halt before calling him (man) into existence, as if he were pondering within himself to make a decision“. The emphasis is on the distinction between the human creature and all the others. I agree with the Holy Father here, that man is something unique, someone unique in the divine communication towards the universe

What the Holy Father means by objective is not, as I mentioned, a truth opposed to subjective truth. What the Holy Father means by objective is that it establishes a word by which we may judge and know our subjective experiences. Pope John Paul II was a student of phenomenology a branch of philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness. John Paul II studied phenomenology, and wrote his doctoral dissertation on the phenomenology of Max Scheler. Scheler argued that every human experience is connected to value. In other words that we are either attracted to or repulsed by the value of something. Scheler believed that through subjective experiences we could know these values objectively. For those who are familiar with the constructs of Catholic natural law, you can see how the Holy Father would want to bring this to the table, even this early on.

A further point should be made to bring all this to the fore. A brief look at the Holy Father’s use of the term”subjective” is in order. What he means by subjective throughout this text and in many others of his works is what we experience individually as the goods and the norms of creation. Richard Hogan is my source for my reading of this term. His survey of the first few addresses of the Theology of the Body have been helpful navigation for me. But we can see from above, how objective and subjective are colored by a phenomenological reading in the works of the Holy Father. Hogan Says “In studying Scheler, John Paul saw that Scheler’s use of phenomenology provided a powerful tool for the study of Christian ethics. If the Christian norms taught by Revelation could be understood as interior norms, i.e., if these norms could be perceived through experience as values, they would cease to have the character of external laws imposed on one from the outside.” I could not agree more. Pope John Paul II’s project among other things seeks to show us the natural calling of man and woman. What I’m saying is that the Holy Father wants to show us that what we know to be right, what the Church teaches as right is not externally imposed law, but agrees with the natural conscience of humanity as evidenced by its making clear of the interior “subjective”(or individual) values that humans commonly experience through their subjectivity.

To go back to what West was saying in the introductory articles, the Holy Father is establishing a developed language for talking about human sexuality in the Church as something that has values associated with it, values which should be guided by the question: “What is the act that makes me free to truly love my neighbor?” If some of this isn’t easy to grasp, you’re not alone. Anyways, let’s keep reading this lecture next week, hopefully we can finish the lecture then.