Biblical Hebrew Forum

["JAMES CHRISTIAN READ" <JCR128 AT student.apu.ac.uk>]

Now don't get me wrong. Nobody thinks you're a fool and
nobody is getting upset. I just honestly couldn't 
understand how you could reach such a conclusion and I 
strongly suspect you are being heavily influenced by 
some kind of 'scholarly opinion' or 'scholarly text' 
you have read.

But let's just read the text as it stands without 
imposing any other ideas on it. Let's take the first 
two verses and see what they have to say:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
        
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the 
deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. " (RSV)

Now, the opening statement tells us that elohim made 
the arets (everything below our feet) and the shamayim 
(everything above our feet). This is a rather simplistic 
cosmological view but it is one that everyone I have 
ever met seems to have some kind of innate understanding 
of and the hebrew bible seems to portray such a man's 
point of view cosmology throughout the text.

Next we are told that elohims spirit is flying about 
over the surface of the water. Now with your strict 
understanding of verse 1's reference to creation of 
only heaven and 'earth' you almost reasonably conclude 
that this must mean the water was already there as no 
mention is made of any creation of water. But could it 
not be that most people would understand that the 
creation of the water was greatly implied with the 
explicit creation of the earth? After all, our little 
planet is well known for being covered over 80% in 
water so most people would be forgiven for reaching 
such a conclusion without the author having to explicitly 
write 'in the beginning god made the heaven, the earth 
and the water on it' on the offchance that some 
conspiracy theory about water already existing would 
be born a few thousand years later.

As for your observation about why scholars aren't using 
this as an example to disprove conspiracy theories 
about hellenistic influences on biblical ideas of 
creation the answer is quite simple. The so called 
'scholars' you are referring to are too busy liking the 
idea that water already existed as in a world where all 
the original PhD's have already been done to death as it 
allows them to get funding for an 'original' research 
project which generally entails uncovering some kind of 
scandal. Of course, the masses like a good scandal 
story and many are easily swayed but like I said these 
vain attempts often don't hold up to any real scrutiny 
and an objective person can easily see the true 
motivations by such so called 'scholarly' works that 
you are generally referring to.

In conclusion, I can see how you can theorise that 
there was water before but you have no solid proof 
whatsoever and the internal testimony of the scriptures 
makes it quite clear that the first chapter which 
doesn't make use of elohim's proper name serves to 
elucidate the meaning of his name by describing him as 
the creator of all things.

James C. Read
UK

-----Original Message-----
From: "Joel Stucki" <joel AT stucki.ws>
To: JCR128 AT student.apu.ac.uk
Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 16:59:12 -0700
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] One scholar's' opinion

On 7/2/06, JAMES CHRISTIAN READ <JCR128 AT student.apu.ac.uk> wrote:
> joel wrote:
> "an early mix of time/space/energy/matter" seems absurd in this
> context since each one of those words identify concepts that would
> have been unknown to Moshe and his contemporaries. This sounds like an
> attempt to synthesize the big bang with Genesis rather than an attempt
> to understand the meaning of an ancient text. I recommend you look at
> other creation accounts in ANE texts such as Enuma Elish and also
> compare it to other creation references in the Tanakh. particularly
> Job 38 is a great one. This is a story of beating back chaos,
> particularly the sea. The chaotic state described can best be
> understood as a mass of dark chaotic waters that will eventually be
> lighted and formed into the sky and sea. They must be pulled back to
> allow the heavens and the earth to exist between them. It could even
> be argued that this is only a creation of the heavens and the earth
> and that the waters above the heavens and below the land were
> pre-existent.
>
> Joel Stucki
> END QUOTE
>
> I'm sorry but there is so much wrong with what is said
> by Joel that I cannot even begin to comprehend how
> anyone could reach such a conclusion.
>
> The bible narrative of creation stands in stark contrast
> to other ancient creation epics which usually involve
> dragons and other such comical facets.
> The hebrew cosmology was land vs' sky/space much as
> our perception of it is today. The opening statement
> 'god made the heavens (sky/space) and the earth
> (land/ground) is pretty much all-encompassing. It is
> clear that the idea was that nothing physical existed
> prior. And just in case it wasn't clear enough verse
> 3 makes it super clear by letting us know that the
> concept of light didn't even exist.
> Before verse 1 what we have is the physical universe is
> basically, er, well, nothing. The above comments are
> typical of those who wish to place the biblical creation
> account in the same comical realm as other ancient epic
> accounts. However, as can be seen such vain attempts
> don't hold up to close scrutiny.
>
> James C. Read
> UK

I won't defend my statements too much because I think they are clear
enough but I have to admit I find it humorous that people get upset if
I suggest that there is not evidence to place the Tanakh in the
ancient context its traditional dates claim and then people get upset
if I suggest that the oldest story is best understood in context with
other documents that are contemporary to when it is claimed to have
been written.

Yes there are some very neat differences between the Genesis creation
stories (there are at least two distinct stories the second beginning
at 2:4) and other ANE documents. These are not at all stark contrasts
however. Also the idea of creation ex nihilo originates about the
second century CE. The text does not internally support the idea in
any of the creation statements. For example, where is the creation of
water? If it did support these ideas it would be so philosophically
out of place that scholars would be using it as evidence that it
really is just a late work of Hellenistic Judaism.

As to the idea of not knowing how I even reach my conclusion, it is
based on a face value reading of the text in light of other ancient
documents including other sections of the Tanakh itself. I understand
your position and I respect it. I believe your position is reasonably
defensible. Please do not imply that those who take other positions
are somehow fools.

Joel Stucki

creation
stories (there are at least two distinct stories the second beginning
at 2:4) and other ANE documents. These are not at all stark contrasts
however. Also the idea of creation ex nihilo originates about the
second century CE. The text does not internally support the idea in
any of the creation statements. For example, where is the creation of