The Phenomenology of Symbol: Genesis I and II

  • Frank K. Flinn
Part of the Phaenomenologica book series (PHAE, volume 92)


The following essay, which is divided into three parts, is a phenomenological interpretation of the two accounts of creation which open the Book of Genesis. In the first part below, I discuss the problem of interpretation stemming from the current use of the term “myths” for the creation accounts. In the second part, I examine a problem peculiar to modernity — critical consciousness along with the demystification and demythologization which may block us from interpreting symbolic discourse. These two parts then provide a dialectical framework for the third — the phenomenological approach to the texts about the “Beginning” in the Book of Genesis.


Human Existence Mustard Seed Religious Discourse Heavenly Body Biblical Text 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    L Paul Ricoeur, “The Language of Faith”, The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: An Anthology of His Work, ed. Charles E. Reagan and David Stewart ( Boston: Beacon Press, 1978 ), p. 228.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. van der Leeuw, Religion in Essence and Manifestation, trans. J.E. Turner ( New York: Harper & Row, 1963 ), p. 25.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cf. Paul Ricoeur, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning ( Fort Worth: The Texas Christian University Press, 1976 ), pp. 89–95.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: The Seabury Press, 1975), pp. 273–4, 337, 338; Paul Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil, trans. Emerson Buchanan ( Boston: Beacon Press, 1967 ), pp. 347–57.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rolph Rendtorff, “ ‘Machet euch die Erde untertan’: Mensch und Natur im Alten Testament”, Evangelische Kommentare 10/11 (1977), pp. 659–61. See my redaction of this article in Theology Digest 27/3 (Fall, 1979), pp. 213–16.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G.F.W. Hegel, The Philosophy of History, trans. J. Sibree ( New York: Dover Publications, 1956 ), p. 196.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Immanuel Kant, Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, trans. Thomas K. Abbott ( Indianapolis: The Library of Liberal Arts, 1949 ), p. 49.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cf. Paul Ricoeur, Fallible Man, trans. Charles Kelbley (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co., 1965), p. 19 ff.; Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace, trans. Arthur Wills ( New York: G.P. Putman’s Sons, 1952 ), pp. 200–03.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paul Ricoeur, Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation,trans. Denis Savage (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), pp. 28–32; Victor Turner, The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967), pp. 27–9. Ricoeur’s distinction between sign and symbol corresponds to Kant’s distinction between the schema and the symbol: “Schemata contain direct, symbols indirect, presentations of the concept. Schemata effect this presentation demonstratively, symbols by the aid of an analogy, judgment performs a double function” — The Critique of Judgment,trans. James Creed Meredith (Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1952), Part I: The Critique of Aesthetic Judgment, p. 222. The schematism allows for the direct application of the category to the appearance or the conceptual organization of a field of experience which brings about knowledge (cf. The Critique of Pure Reason,trans. Norman Kemp Smith [New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1965], A 137/B 176—a 147/B187, pp. 180–87). Symbols do not provide direct knowledge by food for reflection arising from the indirect analogy of two unlike things, e.g., a hand-mill and a despotic state (The Critique of Judgment,p. 223). Kant suggests all religious discourse is symbolic in this sense.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ricoeur, Freud,p. 531.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ricoeur, “The Critique of Religion” in The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur,pp. 213–22.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cf. Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will in Martin Luther: Selections from his Writings, ed. John Dillenberger (New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1961 ), pp. 172–73.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Francis Bacon, “The Great Instauration” in The New Organon and Related Writings, ed. Fulton H. Anderson ( Indianapolis: The Library of Liberal Arts, 1960 ), p. 25.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bacon hints that nature or the “book of God’s works” is a “second Scripture” almost on an equal basis with the book of God’s words — “Aphorisms in the Primary History”, Aphorism ix, in Bacon, p. 282. Spinoza wrote that “the method of interpreting Scripture does not widely differ from the method of interpreting nature — in fact, it is almost the same”. Cf. Benedict Spinoza, Theopolitical Treatise and a Political Treatise,trans. R.H.M. Elwes (New York: Dover Publications, 1951), p. 99.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hegel, preface to The Philosophy of Right in The Philosophy of Hegel, ed. Carl J. Friedrich ( New York: The Modern Library, 1954 ), p. 225.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Karl Marx, “Toward a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law: Introduction” in Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society, ed. Lloyd D. Easton and Kurt H. Guddat ( New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1967 ), pp. 250–51.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cf. esp. Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future,trans. R.J. Hollingdale (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1973), Part Three: The Religious Nature, pp. 56–71.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cf. Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion (New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1961), pp. 30–31. It is important to note that Freud distinguishes sharply between illusions, errors and delusion.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans,trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns (London: Oxford University Press, 1968), pp. 150, 236–44.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rudolph Bultmann, Jesus Christ and Mythology ( New York: Charles Scribener’s Sons, 1958 ), p. 36.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cf. Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, ed. Carl E. Braaten ( New York: Touchstones Books, 1968 ), p. 524.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    See, e.g., James Pritchard, The Ancient Near East: an Anthology of Texts and Pictures (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958), fig. 170.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thorkild Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion ( New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976 ), p. 168.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    This diagram represents an abbreviation of the discussion by Leo Stauss, “Jerusalem and Athens, Some Introductory Reflections”, Commentary 43/6 (June, 1967), pp. 45–57.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    On the phenomenological “taxonomy” of the laws of the clean and unclean, cf. Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1966), pp. 53–72; Jean Soler, “The Dietary Prohibitions and the Hebrews”, New York Review of Books (July 14, 1979); and Robert Alter, “A New Theory of Kashrut”, Commentary 43/2 (August, 1979), pp. 46–52.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cf. Ricoeur, Fallible Man,pp. 26–57.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kant, “Conjectural Beginning of History” in Kant on History,ed. Lewis Beck White, Robert E. Anchor and Emil L. Fackenheim (New York: The Library of Liberal Arts, 1963), pp. 55 ff.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    The Epic of Gilgamesh (X1.6) in Pritchard, p. 66.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Claude Lévi-Strauss, “The Structural Study of Myth” in Structural Anthropology,trans. Claire Jacobsen and Brooke G. Schoeff (New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1967), p. 226. Lévi-Strauss comes close to reducing symbols to logico-technical signs but pulls himself up short.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ricoeur, The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur,p. 234.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank K. Flinn

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations