Genesis 1 & 2 (Peter)

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at mclink.it
Sun Dec 5 17:49:08 EST 1999


>PK: So when was LXX Genesis (i.e. the text printed by 
>Rahlfs etc) produced? Before, contemporary with or after the Wisdom of 
>Solomon in the same volume? We don't know, I think. But it is unlikely 
>to have been long after. So LXX Genesis is the pre-patristic support 
>for creation ex nihilo which you asked me for, as is Hebrews.

You haven't established the "pre-patristic" qualification for Hebrews. What
shows you that Hebrews was known before patristic times? When you consider
that the first father who shows any substantive gospel knowledge was
Justin, it's difficult to make any claims about Hebrews. When does it make
its appearance in the fathers? When was Genesis translated? You have not
dealt with anything here. More assumptions.

>>>PK: I would tentatively suggest that God first created formless 
>>>matter, raw material if you like, and then gave form to it.
>>
>>Chaos, Peter. God created chaos. Why not just create the things and not 
>>waste time? This is the problem invented by the creatio-ex-nihilo crew. God 
>>creates chaos then creates everything from it.
>
>PK: Potters make clay and then form pots out of them. Are they wasting 
>their time with the clay, should they not make pots straight away? See 
>also Isaiah 45:9.

So, God makes chaos?  (-:

l' bhw br'h

>when, do what, who, what
>
>The "when" is comparable; the "do what" synonyms; the "who" is the same; 
>and the "what" is the same.
>
>PK: ????? Consider the sentences "You are boring." and "You are 
>bored." 

Peter, at least use an appropriate analogy. This is deliberate perversion.
Try something like "Having seen..." and "He saw..." or somesuch that you
might reasonably argue was analogous. Instead you choose a passivization
which obviously changes the direction of action -- conscious, deliberate
perversion.

>Both have the same structure and end with different forms of 
>the same root. But are they synonymous? No, though they may both be 
>true.
>
>>In 1:1 BFRF) is a QATAL finite verb form (not a Masoretic invention, 
>>as LXX translates this as a finite verb, in the aorist).

But then, how does the LXX translate the equivalent verb in 2:4b? Exactly
the same word in the same form. Sorry, Peter, you have no argument.

en arxE epoiEsen o Qeos ton ouranon hai tEn gEn

E Emera epoiEsen o Qeos ton ouranon hai tEn gEn

Note the only difference is the temporal phrase. You're overworking your
expectations.

>Which was done first, the pointing or the "LXX" translation of Genesis?
>
>PK: Do you really not know? The Rahlfs LXX text is based mainly on 
>three 4th-5th century CE manuscripts, two in the British Museum and 
>one in the Vatican. The pointing of the Hebrew Bible is generally 
>considered to be much later than this - or do you want to dispute 
>that?

By whom? Why? Is this another of your famous consensus statements of
opinion? There's a bunch of monkeys that think they are Shakespeare: well,
they've just written Hamlet!

>>PK: I see 1:1-2 as outside and before the framework of the seven days, 
>>as indicated by the Hebrew verb forms, and indicating the background.
>
>I agree with the background notion -- the state of affairs at the time of 
>the action, but you have shown no reason to order the talk of creation in 
>v1 with the fact that the earth was thw wbhw in v2. Both clauses contain a 
>qatal, so how do you relate them to each other? Aren't they simultaneous?
>
>>However, to me verse 1 makes it clear that God did create ex nihilo
>
>Yet the verb form is qatal. Are you giving it narrative force then with 
>respect to the other qatals, ie that the creation mentioned in v1 came 
>before the situation in v2? Or are all the clauses in v1 & 2 on the same 
>par. If the x-qatal provides the background information for the wayyiqtol, 
>then we should take in consideration both examples of x-qatal in vv1&2. 
>Perhaps it's just my lack of knowledge in Hebrew (eminently possible), but 
>have you got any examples of x-qatal in narrative sequence?
>
>PK: Now you are having some sensible ideas! Yes, indeed we have to 
>consider the possibility that verse 2 is a flashback to before verse 
>1, and so read: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the 
>earth. The earth had been formless and void, with the spirit/wind 
>hovering over the waters...". But x-qatal can start a sequence, as in 
>1 Kings 1:1 where David grew old before they tried to keep him warm.

But the "tried to keep him warm" isn't qatal, is it? (Sorry, for some
reason I can't find a copy of 1Kgs amongst the tanach files I have, so I'm
looking at the Strong's numbers in a bible program which indicates that the
verb form is not qatal. I gather the "tried to keep him warm" is a yiqtol,
so we're in better known waters and you don't seem to have an analogous
situation.) 

>>If this is different from Enuma Elish,
>
>Red herring.
>
>PK: You brought this into the picture, by trying to make Genesis say 
>the same as Enuma Elish.

And you were deviating the subject to give a gratuitous opinion.


Cheers,


Ian




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list