As a side note, von Rad's first name is the German equivalent (version) of my middle name (my nomen). I go by Edgar in professional circles, but old friends, my family, and my wife call me "Gerard."
On page 46 of his Genesis commentary, von Rad concedes that Gen. 1:1 could be understood--from a grammatico-syntactic perspective--as an introductory clause to 1:2 or 1:3. However, he insists that 1:1 must be understood as an independent sentence from a theological perspective. So it ought to be rendered: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Hence, we learn God freely and in accord with his omnipotent volition determined that the cosmos would have "a beginning of its subsequent existence" (46).
Additionally, von Rad contends that bara signifies "the divine creative activity," which has no analogy in creation (47). He believes the word is intentionally used to denote creatio ex nihilo or divine effortlessness--creation without the use of any preexistent material unlike Plato's Demiurge in his famous work, Timaeus. That deity creates sensible objects by means of recalcitrant matter, but YHWH creates ex nihilo. There is apparently no creative struggle delineated in the opening verses of Genesis. Yet does von Rad go too far when claiming that bara unequivocally denotes creatio ex nihilo? Maybe he does in the light of 2 Maccabees 7:28 and Heb. 11:3. On the other hand, he is likely correct that bara rules out the divine employment of already existent material.
Kenneth A. Matthews provides a more nuanced view in his New American Commentary on Genesis. See pages 136-142.
5 comments:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Rpii9GOKOX4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=New+American+Commentary+on+Genesis&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=translating%201%3A1-2&f=false
First paragraph of pg139 is highly debatable as it is not necessary to read genesis one in a total time sequence - verse one can encompass all that follows which includes deep waters and fluttering wind. Whatever nuance we want to give to the meaning of tehom, it remains "the deep" in essence.
Matthews doesn't actually say that Gen 1:1ff must be read in a strict time sequence. He even writes, "Regardless of how one reads 1:1-3 . . ."
That doesn't sound dogmatic to me. Nor is he saying the text must be read a certain way, but that regardless of how one reads the verses, no room exists for a Platonic reading of Genesis 1:1-3.
I also don't find Genesis commentators denying that tehom should be translated "deep" or "the deep." Where does Matthews say any different? See pages 93-4 of his commentary where he clearly Englishes tehom as "deep." Compare pages 133-4 of the commentary too.
Yet, doesn't he say that it is creation from nothing because their is no mention of the deep.
I don't see Matthews or von Rad expressing that thought aywhere. See pages 139-42 of Matthews.
Post a Comment