hebrew question/OT

[reyvin]

Hey all,

Looking for those in 'the know' (re: hebrew lingo) to fill me in on the logic (perhaps motivation?) of those who want to retranslate Genesis 1:1 as 'In the beginning of Gods creating the heavens and earth'.....

Is this a legit reading? Which is more likely?

Or perhaps is there simply a greater motivation to try and make eternal matter an issue as LDS would like? Or perhaps to try to make it more 'borrowish' whereas the surrounding nations had preexisting matter in place in their accounts?

Scroll to page 132 on this fellows' dissertation for his argument for the 'new' version.
http://www.uwm.edu/~rdholmst/HolmstedtDissertation.pdf

[George Murphy]

Hey all,

Looking for those in 'the know' (re: hebrew lingo) to fill me in on the logic (perhaps motivation?) of those who want to retranslate Genesis 1:1 as 'In the beginning of Gods creating the heavens and earth'.....

Is this a legit reading? Which is more likely?

Or perhaps is there simply a greater motivation to try and make eternal matter an issue as LDS would like? Or perhaps to try to make it more 'borrowish' whereas the surrounding nations had preexisting matter in place in their accounts?

Scroll to page 132 on this fellows' dissertation for his argument for the 'new' version.
http://www.uwm.edu/~rdholmst/HolmstedtDissertation.pdf
I suggest looking at the analysis by Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Commentary (Augsburg, 1984). This is a massive treatment. In brief, he argues that grammar itself doesn't allow one to decide between the 2 alternatives. But the absence of parallels to the initial phrase in other ANE creation stories and its relationship to the following material indicates that it should be read as "a heading that takes in everything in the narrative in one single sentence" (p.94). Thus the traditional reading, "In the beginning God created ..." is to be preferred.

Shalom,
George

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Hey all,

Looking for those in 'the know' (re: hebrew lingo) to fill me in on the logic (perhaps motivation?) of those who want to retranslate Genesis 1:1 as 'In the beginning of Gods creating the heavens and earth'.....

Is this a legit reading? Which is more likely? Even if it is wrong, it is a defensible translation. The word for "beginning," bereshith, is of a very unusual form, and has the appearance of perhaps being a kind of construct form ("beginning of"). There is no definite article (as in "THE beginning"), which is also a feature of contruct nouns.

Have a look at John 1:1, however. The phrase "in the beginning" comes straight from Genesis 1:1, and John also used no definite article, yet it seems he did not interpret the noun as a construct form. This results in the awkward Greek of John 1:1, which literally translates to "In beginning was the word." So I think there is reason not to take it as a construct, and simply read it as "in the beginning, God ceated....", but I owuld have to admit to those who say "in the beginnng of...." that they do at least have a case.

Glenn

[reyvin]

Even if it is wrong, it is a defensible translation. The word for "beginning," bereshith, is of a very unusual form, and has the appearance of perhaps being a kind of construct form ("beginning of"). There is no definite article (as in "THE beginning"), which is also a feature of contruct nouns.

Have a look at John 1:1, however. The phrase "in the beginning" comes straight from Genesis 1:1, and John also used no definite article, yet it seems he did not interpret the noun as a construct form. This results in the awkward Greek of John 1:1, which literally translates to "In beginning was the word." So I think there is reason not to take it as a construct, and simply read it as "in the beginning, God ceated....", but I owuld have to admit to those who say "in the beginnng of...." that they do at least have a case.

Glenn

When it comes to languages I'm certainly novice. But I've got one possible objection to this alternate translation and its this: What about the fact that the perfect form is used in 1:1? Doesn't that belay any chance of this new translation being accurate?

[John Reece]

Even if it is wrong, it is a defensible translation. The word for "beginning," bereshith, is of a very unusual form, and has the appearance of perhaps being a kind of construct form ("beginning of"). There is no definite article (as in "THE beginning"), which is also a feature of contruct nouns.

Have a look at John 1:1, however. The phrase "in the beginning" comes straight from Genesis 1:1, and John also used no definite article, yet it seems he did not interpret the noun as a construct form. This results in the awkward Greek of John 1:1, which literally translates to "In beginning was the word." So I think there is reason not to take it as a construct, and simply read it as "in the beginning, God ceated....", but I owuld have to admit to those who say "in the beginnng of...." that they do at least have a case.

Glenn

The LXX of Genesis 1:1 has En arch epoihsen o qeoV (In the beginning (en arch) God created -ESV), the first two words of which are exactly the same as the beginning of John 1:1.

The prepositional phrase en arch occurs also in these texts:

John 1:2, He was in the beginning (en arch) with God (ESV)

Acts 11:15, As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning (en arch -ESV).

Philippians 4:15, And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning (en arch) of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only (ESV).
Note that the sense of arch (the beginning) in each of the above texts is definite, even though there is no definite article in the Greek text.

Consider also this text, wherein arch bears a definite sense even though there is no definite article in the Greek text:

Colossians 1:18, And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning (arch), the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. (ESV)
The LXX is a faithful rendering of the sense of the Hebrew BR)$YT BR) )LHYM (In the beginning God created).



Hey all,

Looking for those in 'the know' (re: hebrew lingo) to fill me in on the logic (perhaps motivation?) of those who want to retranslate Genesis 1:1 as 'In the beginning of Gods creating the heavens and earth'.....

Is this a legit reading? Which is more likely?

Or perhaps is there simply a greater motivation to try and make eternal matter an issue as LDS would like? Or perhaps to try to make it more 'borrowish' whereas the surrounding nations had preexisting matter in place in their accounts?

As you noted in your last post above, BR) is perfect, as the LXX faithfully confirms by rendering it epoihsen, which is aorist. The Hebrew perfect (in BR) )LHYM) and the Greek aorist (in epoihsen o qeoV) are naturally and faithfully rendered "God created" in Genesis 1:1.

You are justified in questioning the motivation of those who seek to make the scriptures conform to idiosyncratic notions that do not arise naturally from a knowledge of - and a faithful rendering of - the biblical languages.

[reyvin]

The LXX of Genesis 1:1 has En arch epoihsen o qeoV (In the beginning (en arch) God created -ESV), the first two words of which are exactly the same as the beginning of John 1:1.

The prepositional phrase en arch occurs also in these texts:

John 1:2, He was in the beginning (en arch) with God (ESV)

Acts 11:15, As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning (en arch -ESV).

Philippians 4:15, And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning (en arch) of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only (ESV).
Note that the sense of arch (the beginning) in each of the above texts is definite, even though there is no definite article in the Greek text.

Consider also this text, wherein arch bears a definite sense even though there is no definite article in the Greek text:

Colossians 1:18, And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning (arch), the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. (ESV)
The LXX is a faithful rendering of the sense of the Hebrew BR)$YT BR) )LHYM (In the beginning God created).



As you noted in your last post above, BR) is perfect, as the LXX faithfully confirms by rendering it epoihsen, which is aorist. The Hebrew perfect (in BR) )LHYM) and the Greek aorist (in epoihsen o qeoV) are naturally and faithfully rendered "God created" in Genesis 1:1.

You are justified in questioning the motivation of those who seek to make the scriptures conform to idiosyncratic notions that do not arise naturally from a knowledge of - and a faithful rendering of - the biblical languages.

Thanks all. :)

So then, are we justified as reading 1:1 as an actual action rather than a summary then? Again this is essential in arguing -vs- the preexistant matter argument. For if 1:2 is the actual beginning, then LDS have a point (the deep existed in 1:2). But if 1:1 is an actual event occurring, then ex nihilo is still very much in place and accounts for the items in 1:2.

Any insights into this?

ps - LOVE the text John! Where do you find the snazzy letters?

[Agent Yoshi]

Hi Reyvin!

The Hebrew word אֱלֹהִים (Elohiym), generally translated as "God", ends in a masculine plural ending, it does not neccessarily mean it is numerically plural. Why is this?

For a word to be numerically plural, there are three things we need to look for:

1) The word needs to be plural
2) The verb needs to be plural
3) The adjective needs to be plural

Without Plural verbs and/or adjectives, a plural word might as well be in the singular form.

Got an hour? I've got an audio lesson that you might enjoy which will entirely disprove the notion that אֱלֹהִים should be rendered as "Gods" in this passage. It is entitled "Is Elohiym a Plurality", and is presented by Nehemia Gordon.

However, I should tell you that it is mainly concerned with disproving the notion that אֱלֹהִים implies a trinity - it covers both bases though.

Should you be interested, have your bible ready, and grab it at:

http://1.ancient-paths.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=index&req=viewdownload&cid=1

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The LXX of Genesis 1:1 has En arch epoihsen o qeoV (In the beginning (en arch) God created -ESV), the first two words of which are exactly the same as the beginning of John 1:1.

The prepositional phrase en arch occurs also in these texts:

John 1:2, He was in the beginning (en arch) with God (ESV)

Acts 11:15, As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning (en arch -ESV).

<snip>
The LXX is a faithful rendering of the sense of the Hebrew BR)$YT BR) )LHYM (In the beginning God created).I agree that the proper translation is "in the beginning, God..." as I noted above. But once more, the reason for the disagreement is the form that bereshith presents us with. What is it? It certainly is not a regular use of the noun rosh, and we must admit if we are honest, that even if we do not accept the translation "in the beginning of....", the ending does indeed have the appearance of being some sort of construct noun. We don't have any say, we simply must concede that much, or we would rightly be accused of refusing to even look at the evidence against our view.

So as I said, there is evidence for that view, even if (as I believe) the view is false.
As you noted in your last post above, BR) is perfect, as the LXX faithfully confirms by rendering it epoihsen, which is aorist. The Hebrew perfect (in BR) )LHYM) and the Greek aorist (in epoihsen o qeoV) are naturally and faithfully rendered "God created" in Genesis 1:1.Granted. I'm not sure the fact that bara is perfect wold be a decisive victory against the translation being suggsted though. If we claim as our proof that abara is not normally used that way, our opponent might rightly respond that rosh is not normally used in this way (as an apparent construct) when the meaning is as we are saying it is.
You are justified in questioning the motivation of those who seek to make the scriptures conform to idiosyncratic notions that do not arise naturally from a knowledge of - and a faithful rendering of - the biblical languages.
That is territory I dare not enter. the LORD knows man's motives, but we cannot assume that foul motives are at work just because somebody's translation differs from ours. There is evidence in favour of that translation, and some people with great knowledge of Hebrew are indeed sympthetic to it, even if I, with my inferior knowledge, am not.

Glenn

[John Reece]

. . .

That is territory I dare not enter. the LORD knows man's motives, but we cannot assume that foul motives are at work just because somebody's translation differs from ours. There is evidence in favour of that translation, and some people with great knowledge of Hebrew are indeed sympthetic to it, even if I, with my inferior knowledge, am not.

Glenn

questioning

adjective

Eager to acquire knowledge: curious, inquiring, inquisitive, investigative. See investigate.
Refusing or reluctant to believe: disbelieving, incredulous, skeptical, unbelieving. See belief/unbelief.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roget's II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition by the Editors of the American Heritage® Dictionary Copyright © 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn,

I do not assume anyone's motives are "foul", and I have no problem with anyone rendering any translation different from mine.

However, when there is practically a universal consensus regarding the rendering of a text such as Genesis 1:1, I would "question" a rendering that originated in my own mind if it differed from a practically universal consensus to the contrary - because to question an idiosyncratic translation is not to say it is "foul", nor is it to say that it is false: it's just not to be embraced without seriously examining the possibility that some personal presupposition (or predisposition) may be overriding pure exegesis.

Blessings,

John

[John Reece]

ps - LOVE the text John! Where do you find the snazzy letters?

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17908

[reyvin]

Hi Reyvin!

The Hebrew word אֱלֹהִים (Elohiym), generally translated as "God", ends in a masculine plural ending, it does not neccessarily mean it is numerically plural. Why is this?

For a word to be numerically plural, there are three things we need to look for:

1) The word needs to be plural
2) The verb needs to be plural
3) The adjective needs to be plural

Without Plural verbs and/or adjectives, a plural word might as well be in the singular form.

Got an hour? I've got an audio lesson that you might enjoy which will entirely disprove the notion that אֱלֹהִים should be rendered as "Gods" in this passage. It is entitled "Is Elohiym a Plurality", and is presented by Nehemia Gordon.

However, I should tell you that it is mainly concerned with disproving the notion that אֱלֹהִים implies a trinity - it covers both bases though.

Should you be interested, have your bible ready, and grab it at:

http://1.ancient-paths.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=index&req=viewdownload&cid=1

Thanks man. :)

I'll be sure to have a peek when I get an opportunity. Does it cover my 'newer' question also from above?

"So then, are we justified as reading 1:1 as an actual action rather than a summary then? Again this is essential in arguing -vs- the preexistant matter argument. For if 1:2 is the actual beginning, then LDS have a point (the deep existed in 1:2). But if 1:1 is an actual event occurring, then ex nihilo is still very much in place and accounts for the items in 1:2."

I've seen lots of different opinions from scholars on this also.

[reyvin]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17908

*test*

yo

[Agent Yoshi]

I'll leave that to people much smarter than me.

Thanks man. :)

I'll be sure to have a peek when I get an opportunity. Does it cover my 'newer' question also from above?

"So then, are we justified as reading 1:1 as an actual action rather than a summary then? Again this is essential in arguing -vs- the preexistant matter argument. For if 1:2 is the actual beginning, then LDS have a point (the deep existed in 1:2). But if 1:1 is an actual event occurring, then ex nihilo is still very much in place and accounts for the items in 1:2."

I've seen lots of different opinions from scholars on this also.

[reyvin]

Glenn,

I do not assume anyone's motives are "foul", and I have no problem with anyone rendering any translation different from mine.

However, when there is practically a universal consensus regarding the rendering of a text such as Genesis 1:1, I would "question" a rendering that originated in my own mind if it differed from a practically universal consensus to the contrary - because to question an idiosyncratic translation is not to say it is "foul", nor is it to say that it is false: it's just not to be embraced without seriously examining the possibility that some personal presupposition (or predisposition) may be overriding pure exegesis.

Blessings,

John

Found an interesting quote:

The translation "in the beginning" fits the context of this opening sentence and of the entire chapter, because these words declare the absolute beginning of time. Before this initial act of creation, there was no time. The introduction of the temporal conjunction "when" into the translation, as is done in some modern versions, takes away the absolute quality of the "beginning" in that this presupposes contrary to the text that something material was already existing in time. Intruding "when" into the text also makes it evocative of certain Middle Eastern myths often cited by form-critics, such as the Babylonian creation hymn Enuma Elish ("When on High"), and thus artificially injects a mythological flavor into the biblical narrative.

Richard Clifford, for instance, in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, translates these opening words as "When God began to create heaven and earth." His reason for starting with "when" is not so much the tenor of the Hebrew words themselves as his conviction that "authentic stories of 2d-millennium ancestors have been revised and added to in the long course of their transmission; recovery of the 'original' stories is impossible because of the lack of extrabiblical sources."

He bases this conviction on a more general conclusion: "In Mesopotamian culture, evidently the model for most of the stories in Genesis 1-11, scribes explored beginnings through stories and cosmogonies, not through abstract reasoning. ... Gen 1-11 then is a single story, an unusually sustained 'philosophical' and 'theological' explanation of the human race." Thus, Clifford revises the text backwards as he adjusts it according to his idea of where the story may have come from. In his view, "The biblical writers have produced a version of a common Mesopotamian story of the origins of the populated world, exploring major questions about God and humanity through narrative."

[Menachem]

Here is an Idea for you all.

בראשית ברא אלהים an alternate translation to this and probably a really good one.

In this part of the verse it is commonly rendered as "In the Beginning" I and other famous Jewish commentators disagree that this should be rendered as such.

I would like to suggest that the Idea here is not totally Chronological and a better rendering should be either " In the beginning of G-d's creating" or "When G-d began to create." With this I would like to propose the total rendering of "[1]In the beginning of G-d's creating the Heavens and the Earth- [2] when the earth was empty.......and so on..." In my opinion that flows better than the traditional rendering of "In the Beginning G-d created"

On a side note you can homiletically separate the term בראשית into the words בשביל and ראשית saying " [the world was created]for the sake of[the things that are called] beginning" meaning that G-d brought the world into being for the sake of things that are of basic importance that the Torah calls them ראשית , first or beginning.