Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

Niels,
> One of the basic parts of the training at universities is to tell people to
> read a text in context. You cannot isolate one verse from it context and
> claim that you can interpret it out of context. 

Please don't talk down to me, Niels.  It's unbecoming to you and 
irritating to me.  You're a better scholar than that.

Gen 1:1 can be translated in
> several different ways, e.g. because the first word does not say in the
> beginning but as it stands in the Leningradiensis (and Aleppo for that
> matter) 'at a beginning'. Of course you may argue that the vocalization is
> wrong. Some takes it to be a superheading for the whole chapter, other as an
> introductionary clause 'as God began to create...'. There are several
> possibilities but consult Westermann, he has everything worth knowing (and
> probably also everything not worth knowing).

Read in context...check out Westermann...all I can say is "*yawn* 
been there, done that, got the T-shirt."  It's grammatically possible 
to translate the first word of Gen 1:1 some different ways, that's 
true, but that fact doesn't make any one of them correct as 
opposed to any of the others.  I don't argue that the vocalization is 
"wrong" any more than I argue that British spelling of "colour" is 
"wrong."  I do suggest, though, that Hebrew had enough latitude to 
allow for definiteness without the article (see the relevant sections 
in Gesenius, for a start).  To insist on translating it as "a beginning" 
is more than a little slavish, and actually unnecessary.

> The conclusion is that you have to interpret Gen 1:1 in light of what comes
> next, and then it turns out that the primeval waters contain the dryt earth,
> otherwise explain the creation of the dry earth that follows a few verses
> later. 

Uh-uh.  Sorry, but I have to claim "foul" here.  You say that "at a 
beginning" is one possible translation, then proceed as if it's the 
only correct one.  That has not been established, and in fact 
grammatically it can't be established.  It can be posited, just as I 
posited the other translation, but in reality the grammar doesn't 
favor one over the other at all.  For that matter, the suggestion 
(from Lee?  memory fails me this early in the morning) that it's in 
construct with the following verb is also possible.  So that gives us 
at least 3 possible translations,  all apparently on fairly equal 
footing in terms of grammatical possibility.  From there the task is 
for each of us to develop why we think ours is better than the 
others.  I've given a brief summary from my end, and will be happy 
to develop it further as discussion progresses.  I wasn't in on the 
previous discussion of this passage, and actually didn't follow it 
that closely, but I'll be happy to kick it around with you as long as 
we can both keep a decent tone.

> The last thing to do if you want to know what is going on here is to
> intriduce Christian doctrine to explain the content of this chapter.

Why?  Do you assume a priori that such a doctrine can't be right?  
That strikes me as a tad prejudicial.  Semantically, we see a 
perfectly sensible progression: initial creation (bfrf' v.1) followed by 
forming said creation into various items (`f&fh in the rest of the 
chapter).  That Christian doctrine is built out of centuries of 
interaction with the text, and it seems to me that we throw all that 
research out a priori to our detriment.  Someone in this thread 
(forgive me again, names are escaping me at the moment) 
indicated that some medieval Jewish scholars rejected creation ex 
nihilo, and we need to look at those arguments as well.  I for one 
would like to hear more about how those who went before us 
reached their conclusions.  I can't just sit back and say "Oh, that's 
a Christian doctrine, toss it out" or "That's just Rabbinical stuff, it's 
not important."  I would hope you don't either.


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Teach me your way, O Lord, and I will walk in your truth;
give me an undivided heart that I may fear your name.
                                   Psalm 86:11