This is great. If Genesis 1:1 does teach creatio ex-nihilo that is truely revolutionary, and you have, in the very beginning of the Bible, the most philosophically and theologically rich sentence. I think one can find creatio ex-nihilo in the bible outside Genesis, but nevertheless, if it's in Genesis that's quite a bit deal.
I'm not able to comment on the Hebrew aspect, but I do understand that the "in the beginning when" construction makes it easier to contextualize Genesis as standard ANE mythology. But, I'm rooting for the "in the beginning, God created," construction, intellectual revolutions do happen.
While I don't believe that creatio ex nihilo is spelled out clearly in Genesis 1:1, it very well could be implied. Scholars usually argue that 2 Maccabees 7:28 is the first clear statement of creatio ex nihilo in the Jewish tradition: see also Hebrews 11:3. von Rad thought Genesis clearly articulated creatio ex nihilo, but he probably overstated matters. Regardless, I seriously doubt that Genesis 1:1 should be understood as a construct state.
See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/10/gerhard-von-rad-and-genesis-11.html
Until we get a better understanding of ET, all bets are off.
"The meaning of et is like the thing itself, yet indicating a direct object, like et hashamayim, and sometimes it is omitted, as in “since G-d created man” [with the direct object indicator missing] – Deuteronomy 4:32. And at times it’s [even] found with the subject, as in “the lion came and et the bear” – Samuel I 17:34, but there are few of these. It can [also] be in place of “with” and in place of ‘from”." - Ibn Ezra
Thanks, articles like this motivate me to start learning Hebrwe :).
I really like Revelation 4:11 for creation ex-nihilo.
Hebrews 11:3 and 2 Mac 7:28 are often cited because of the μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων in Hebrews (I'm not sure that would even count as ex-nihilo, since the unseen world, in many ancient cosmologies, was full of things). and the οὐκ ἐξ ὄντων in Maccabees. But I think the main thrust of Ex-Nihilo is that everything other than God depends on God for its existence, Revelation 4:11 covers that nicely, and perhaps Genesis 1:1 implies that.
Roman: I agree that Rev. 4:11 is a good one for creatio ex nihilo: Hebrew 11:3 only implies creatio ex nihilo IMO, it does not explicitly articulate the doctrine. I also concur that for the ancients, the unseen world was full of entities, and besides, while the writer of Hebrews is not a Platonist (as some imply), I think his point is about pistis, which he discusses throughout Hebrews 11. On the Maccabees text, I think the best interpretation is that creatio ex nihilo is being affirmed. And you remind me that ex nihilo is not explained the same way by everyone.
Duncan, I first want to thank you for pushing me on the issue of sacrifice right before the Memorial. You made me dig deeper into the subject, and I came away appreciating communion sacrifices more this year than in times past.
I will check out the link for the Rig-Veda, but I wonder what that text has to offer a Judaeo-Christian account of creation. The two narratives are quite dissimilar in my understanding of the Rig-Veda: Hinduism's entire metanarratival structure drastically parts ways with Judaism and Christianity.
I must say that I don't see what the problem with the Hebrew "et" is. Research the matter and the issue seems pretty lucid--the object of bara seems pretty clear, however one understands bara. See this thread and follow the link to Gesenius: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4933/meaning-of-et%D7%90%D7%AA-and-vet%D7%95%D6%B0%D7%90%D6%B5%D6%A5%D7%AA-in-genesis-11
Even back in Keil-Delitzsch, notice how they explained Genesis 1:1:
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” - Heaven and earth have not existed from all eternity, but had a beginning; nor did they arise by emanation from an absolute substance, but were created by God. This sentence, which stands at the head of the records of revelation, is not a mere heading, nor a summary of the history of the creation, but a declaration of the primeval act of God, by which the universe was called into being. That this verse is not a heading merely, is evident from the fact that the following account of the course of the creation commences with w (and), which connects the different acts of creation with the fact expressed in Gen 1:1, as the primary foundation upon which they rest. בּרשׁיח (in the beginning) is used absolutely, like ἐν ἀρχῇ in Joh 1:1, and מראשׁיח in Isa 46:10. The following clause cannot be treated as subordinate, either by rendering it, “in the beginning when God created ..., the earth was,” etc., or “in the beginning when God created...(but the earth was then a chaos, etc.), God said, Let there be light” (Ewald and Bunsen). The first is opposed to the grammar of the language, which would require Gen 1:2 to commence with הארץ ותּהי; the second to the simplicity of style which pervades the whole chapter, and to which so involved a sentence would be intolerable, apart altogether from the fact that this construction is invented for the simple purpose of getting rid of the doctrine of a creatio ex nihilo, which is so repulsive to modern Pantheism. ראשׁיח in itself is a relative notion, indicating the commencement of a series of things or events; but here the context gives it the meaning of the very first beginning, the commencement of the world, when time itself began. The statement, that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, not only precludes the idea of the eternity of the world a parte ante, but shows that the creation of the heaven and the earth was the actual beginning of all things.
It's obvious, this authors biases the fact that he reaches into the NT and references John 1:1. But he offers nothing really regarding the Hebrew itself.
I have been over this before but the rig Veda is not Hinduism, that's like saying that Genesis IS Christianity. I am convinces that the rig is far older than 1500bce. Abraham came to live in UR there is nothing about before or where he was born. People's exposures to texts is an unknown quantity. But the rig refers to "in the beginning" a number of times. These should not be ignored.
1) Regarding the quote from Keil-Delitzsch, it's customary in OT scholarship to consider both the Old and New Testament when analyzing a verse. I see nothing wrong with it, as long as the writer makes clear that the original writers would not have had certain ideas about the text. Secondly, they do comment on the Hebrew in the very first part of the quote. Note that K-D say that bereshith is used "absolutely" in Genesis 1:1, not as a construct state. The quote references Isa. 46:10 also. John 1:1 is only references to point out how "the beginning" might be used; many argue that Gen. 1:1 and John 1:1 are talking about the same beginning. See Genesis 1:1 LXX.
2) I remember our conversations about the Rig-Veda, but your comment above implied that the work can shed light on Genesis 1:1 or that it can somehow illuminate our understanding of Jehovah's creative work. If you meant that, I disagree. The text may say "in the beginning," but the accounts are vastly different. The Rig-Veda also may be old, but so is Hinduism: it too is dated to at least 1500 BCE by religion scholars, and the Rig-Veda is commonly thought to be a Hindu text. I seriously doubt that Abraham has any connection to the Rig-Veda. Why should we not think he was born in Mesopotamia? There is no reason to connect Abraham with the Rig-Veda.
3) For the record, the quote in the screenshot did not say that Hebrew is simple or wholly non-complex: he was talking about a very specific sense in which we don't find complexity, namely, in the sense urged by certain scholars regarding Genesis 1:1-3. But he did not write that Hebrew is wholly simple.
4) The main reason I posted the quote concerned whether Genesis 1:1 is an example of the construct state or whether "the beginning" occurs absolutely. I was not focusing on whether Hebrew is simple or not: I know Hebrew is very complex and have never said otherwise.
1) "many argue that Gen. 1:1 and John 1:1 are talking about the same beginning." - that it equates with the LXX text implies nothing of the sort. Gjohn is full of creation account parallels.
2) The argument is circular - what text and tradition are they claiming goes back to 2000BCE?
Thanks for telling me the British Library link is out of date: I went with the one that Google gave me, but does it make any difference to the main point?
The expression in GJohn 1:1 is the same as Genesis 1:1 LXX: that doesn't prove the beginnings are the same, but it's quite likely, given the context of 1:1 and the whole Prologue. The most popular explanation of John 1:1 is that they are referring to the same period. That viewpoint might be wrong, but it's currently the scholarly consensus.
My comment above pertained to Hinduism and how old it is, not to a particular text. One site says that Hinduism is 4,000 years old; others give a date of 1500 BCE.
"Sumerian Gilgamesh is older only if you accept AIT and assume Rig Veda as 1900 to 2000 BC. That would be a circular argument. Archeoastronomical evidence suggests from 6500 BC to400 BC as the date of composition of Risgveda. Then Sarasvati is the know in Rigveda much prior to they knowing Sindhu. (3) The Rigveda does not know of brick (ishtika) but Indus valley knows of it. SO Rigveda is older than Harrapa. It was written in East as they know of Saraswati and not Sindhu in earlier portions. Sarsvati is a measure river when Sarasvati is written. It dries up around 2000 BC. So Rigveda is much earlier to Indus valley civilization. IN Mahabharata Sarasvati is in the beginning stages of drying. Hence Mahabharata is also prior to 2000 BC. That alone takes Veda prior to 3000 BC."
Pertaining to John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1, here is one comment among many, from Herman Ridderbos:
1,2 The words "In the beginning," with which the prologue begin, also form the beginning of the book of Genesis and hence of the entire Torah. From this earlier occurrence they derive a solemn, perhaps even sacred, sound. Furthermore, the words that follow in John, the pronouncements concerning the Word, echo what in Genesis 1 constitutes the foundation of God's revelation in the Old Testament and of Israelite religion: God's creation of heaven and earth. All that now follows in the Gospel has to be understood from the perspective of that "beginning": It arises from that beginning, and that beginning is its deepest and most essential Sitz im Leben. Some interpreters even believe that the opening lines of the prologue (vss.24 1:1-5 1-5) can be explicated totally in light of Gn. 1:Iff. P. Borgen in particular21 has argued that the prologue - in total divergence from the way the hymn hypothesis pictures it - forms an inner and independent unity that in its totality can be characterized as an "exposition" of Gn. l:lff. "Thus Jn 1:1-5 is the basic exposition of Gn 1:1-5, while Jn 1:6ff. elaborates upon terms and phrases from Jn 1:1-5." Borgen bases this view not only on the opening words of John 1 and Genesis 1 but also on the central terms "light" and "darkness" in In. 1:4,5 (cf. Gn. 1:2-5). He also claims that the content of vs. 3 in the prologue is nothing other than a "midrashic" paraphrase of Gn. 1: 1: God created "heaven and earth"(cf. vs. 10). Finally, the term "the Word" is probably, says Borgen, an interpretation of and substitution for the repeated "and God said" in Genesis 1, as in vs. 3 this divine speech hypostatizes itself into light .('~and God said ... and there was"), an identification present also in In. 1:10, where the "light" replaces the "Word." There is support in Jewish exegesis, says Borgen, for the existence of such an identification, namely in Philo, who in his interpretation of Gn. 1:1-3 "moves from the uttered word of God to the concept of Logos in an absolute sense," just as he sometimes attributes to the Logos quite personal features, similarly derived from the creation story, as "God's firstborn,""the beginning," "the Logos."22 This interpretation not only has the merit that it views the prologue as an independent unit, unmixed with a Logos hymn derived from some other source, but also that it shows that the relationship between the prologue and Gn. 1: Iff. not only consists in the first words but continues verbally and materially with the terms "light" "darkness," and "life." But it is another matter whether one can characterize the prologue (especially its beginning) as an "exposition" or midrash of Gn. 1:1-5. The purpose of In. 1:1-5 is not to provide a further exposition of Genesis 1 with an eye to the coming and work of Christ, by way of a "christological doctrine of creation," but rather the reverse: to give to the Christ-event the fundamental "setting" in which alone it can be understood.
The arguments from your quote are less than persuasive, and somewhat non sequitur in their form. That a text omits something does not mean the writer knew nothing about the matter: that simply does not follow logically. In any event, dates for the Vedas are all over the place.
The majority opinion of scholars for the Vedic age is 1500-1000 BCE. See https://www.historydiscussion.net/history-of-india/vedic-civilization/vedic-civilization-and-culture-in-india-indian-history/6488
To be clear, I never equated Hindu culture with Hindu religion although I see a close link between them. I also understand the complexities of Hindu religion/philosophy.
To me, Ridderbos says the Prologue only means anything within the total Gospel's context, but that alone does not inform its meaning: research the subject of semiotic intertextuality. Texts communicate with other texts as we see in Paul and John. G.K. Beale is good at demonstrating semiotic intertextuality between OT and NT.
We agree on the Rig-Veda being the oldest Veda, but we apparently do not concur on whether it's a Hindu (religious) text. That is cool: I won't belabor the point.
For the record, neither Borgen nor Ridderbos are/were American. My knowledge of scholarship actually goes beyond the US :-)
The point about bricks is like the nonsense about chariots that were actually carts. If the text does talk about building and buildings but no bricks that is significant.
Michael Molloy summarized the debates in his seventh edition, I think, but I found this article about Kazanas: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26491233?seq=1
Kazanas has produced a number of works since 2012.
His latest has an interesting title:-
In the beginning: studies in Vedic and Greek philosophies.
Not read it yet though.
The reason I said US is that I am not blind to the political aspect of this kind of scholarship.
In the same way that western biology is imbued with evolutionism or that western theology is wrapped around the trinity. If you want to get published then tow the line or at least do not step on it.
I like his work because he is neither Indian or American and he comes at this from a better perspective IMO. I go by his reasoning rather than him supposedly misquoting others - if that is actually the case.
I've got some of Kazanas' work, but my primary focus/interest is Judaism and Christianity: I don't think many US scholars have interacted with Kazanas and I've actually read more from UK scholarship than American when it comes to Hinduism.
Have you read Khare, Ambarish. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, vol. 96, 2015, pp. 104–106. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26858226. Accessed 2 Apr. 2021.
Molloy is a generalist, a religion scholar. His work is a standard in the field and what he has to say is representative of the religion field, but I don't read him uncritically. However, on the question of Hinduism's age and the Rig-Veda, I accept his position. And he's not alone.
Don't you think it's a little exaggagerated to claim that the Aryan Invasion theory has been killed and buried? :-) Someone needs to alert the guild.
The article about Harappa and Mesopotamia points out that the civilization is shrouded in mystery; even if trade existed between the IVC and Mespotamia, that tells us nothing directly about Abraham. I've seen no credible evidence that he was not native to Mesopotamia. None at all.
I may already have the one file above, but I'll see.
I am amazed that anyone ever believed that Arian invasion could even be called a theory as I has no basis in evidence, it just sprang out of certain people's imagination. A bit like our discussion regarding Hislop or those who were supposed to be the experts on near Eastern biblical geography, who had never actually been their.
"Several scholars, however, are not yet ready to bury the Aryan invasion theory for good even though they agree that the study opens up a new avenue for research."
What I find interesting about this research is that there are a number of other Indian English newspapers that claim the very same data proves there theory, however, they do not look at the wider picture of Indian DNA travelling outwards.
There arguments will rage on I am sure but the theory , as far as evidence goes, it's done.
Thanks for sharing. For the record, I'm not committed to the Aryan invasion theory: I let the scholars work that out. Other things interest me more, but I still find scholars who continue subscribing to the idea. I'm sure some even think they can support it with evidence.
What I always find interesting is when they talk about climate change "theory" when it has always been an observable fact, and they generally omit the important factor - deforestation & the rise of cattle culture.
Observable in the fertile crescent, Egypt, Greece, China, etc.
Cattle culture does not require an invasion, it just a case of cause - the inability to produce grain on mass, & effect - using the food that can exist in this type of after terrain.
Yeah, but you know that "theory" has a technical meaning in science just like it does in philosophy. Like gravitational theory.
From what I've read about climate change, some articles do talk about deforestation and the rise of cattle culture. I know NPR had an article some time ago dealing with the subject.
Again, invasion is probably too strong of a word; so "migration" seems to be replacing it.
But again the theories do not fit the data & the human tendancy to opt for the low hanging fruit. Cultures began with horticulture that developed into civilisations of agriculture that end up as nomad pastoralists. In the UK orchards were a good indicator of culture but - https://www.commonground.org.uk/save-our-orchards/#:~:text=About%20two%20thirds%20of%20Britain's,orchards%20simply%20fade%20with%20neglect. In China areas of land have been rehabilitated by just removing the live stock for a couple of decades.
People become nomad pastoralists. It does not require an special migration of skills. People can start out as pastoralists but as the herds grow the enevitably become nomadic, or they die. Any given area can only provide so much & trees and larger bushes are never allowed to mature. People always need to mimic predators who drive the heard through the landscape. Hence the need for culling - sacrifice.
O–DAN–06 Food for thought – concentration dependent isotopic mixing models applied to data from early Neolithic Turkey and Greece S. Sebald1 , A. Papathanasiou2 , M. P. Richards3 , G. Grupe1 1 Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Martinsried, Germany 2 Greek Ministry of Culture, Athens, Greece 3 Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada Collagen stable isotopes (d13C, d15N) in archaeological human bones are commonly used to describe the trophic level (d15N) and the food source (C3-plants vs. C4-plants, marine vs. terrestrial; d13C). The results are interpreted by bivariate plots and univariate statistics. This method permits the assessment of the gross trophic level of an individual or the whole population. However, an isotopic sourcing reveals much more information about the biomass contribution of selected food end-members. Since it is assumed that the Neolithic transition was accompanied by dietary change, stable isotopic ratios of human and animal bones from the early Neolithic site of Nevalı Çori (Turkey: ca 8500 BCE), and five neolithic sites in Greece (Alepotrypa: ca. 6000-3200 BCE, Franchthi: ca. 6000-3000 BCE, Mavropigi: ca. 6600-6000 BCE, Theopetra: ca. 6500-4000 BCE, Xirolimni: ca. 6100 BCE) were re-interpreted by use of concentration-dependent mixing models provided by IsoConc and SISUS. While the largely vegetarian diet of the humans from Nevalı Çori was confirmed, new staples became visible in the later Greek populations indicative of a changing subsistence economy.
"Earlier research on pottery found at Street House showed lipid deposits, indicating the presence of dairy products and suggesting a society that was moving away from hunter-gathering to a more settled farming lifestyle reliant on growing crops and keeping animals."
Lipids that could be from any amnimal meat, eg. Deer.
The assumption is that hunter gather existed before the transition & opposed to horticulture, but there is now significant evidence for starch centred diets.
"According to isotopic analyses of archaeological human remains from Turkey, meat consumption appears to increase between the ninth and seventh millennia BC. At Nevalı Çori, during the PPNB, the human diet was mainly vegetarian (Lösch, Grupe, Peters, 2006), whereas at the Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük, meat was an important part of the diet (Pearson et al., 2015)"
65 comments:
This is great. If Genesis 1:1 does teach creatio ex-nihilo that is truely revolutionary, and you have, in the very beginning of the Bible, the most philosophically and theologically rich sentence. I think one can find creatio ex-nihilo in the bible outside Genesis, but nevertheless, if it's in Genesis that's quite a bit deal.
I'm not able to comment on the Hebrew aspect, but I do understand that the "in the beginning when" construction makes it easier to contextualize Genesis as standard ANE mythology. But, I'm rooting for the "in the beginning, God created," construction, intellectual revolutions do happen.
Roman,
While I don't believe that creatio ex nihilo is spelled out clearly in Genesis 1:1, it very well could be implied. Scholars usually argue that 2 Maccabees 7:28 is the first clear statement of creatio ex nihilo in the Jewish tradition: see also Hebrews 11:3. von Rad thought Genesis clearly articulated creatio ex nihilo, but he probably overstated matters. Regardless, I seriously doubt that Genesis 1:1 should be understood as a construct state.
See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/10/gerhard-von-rad-and-genesis-11.html
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/03/scholar-john-skinner-commenting-on.html
Roman, check out https://www.jstor.org/stable/43720023?seq=1
I thought it was a helpful article.
Until we get a better understanding of ET, all bets are off.
"The meaning of et is like the thing itself, yet indicating a direct object, like et hashamayim, and sometimes it is omitted, as in “since G-d created man” [with the direct object indicator missing] – Deuteronomy 4:32. And at times it’s [even] found with the subject, as in “the lion came and et the bear” – Samuel I 17:34, but there are few of these. It can [also] be in place of “with” and in place of ‘from”." - Ibn Ezra
One take among so many.
I am still not discounting the rigveda - http://www.columbia.edu/itc/religion/f2001/docs/rigveda.pdf
Thanks, articles like this motivate me to start learning Hebrwe :).
I really like Revelation 4:11 for creation ex-nihilo.
Hebrews 11:3 and 2 Mac 7:28 are often cited because of the μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων in Hebrews (I'm not sure that would even count as ex-nihilo, since the unseen world, in many ancient cosmologies, was full of things). and the οὐκ ἐξ ὄντων in Maccabees. But I think the main thrust of Ex-Nihilo is that everything other than God depends on God for its existence, Revelation 4:11 covers that nicely, and perhaps Genesis 1:1 implies that.
Roman: I agree that Rev. 4:11 is a good one for creatio ex nihilo: Hebrew 11:3 only implies creatio ex nihilo IMO, it does not explicitly articulate the doctrine. I also concur that for the ancients, the unseen world was full of entities, and besides, while the writer of Hebrews is not a Platonist (as some imply), I think his point is about pistis, which he discusses throughout Hebrews 11. On the Maccabees text, I think the best interpretation is that creatio ex nihilo is being affirmed. And you remind me that ex nihilo is not explained the same way by everyone.
Duncan, I first want to thank you for pushing me on the issue of sacrifice right before the Memorial. You made me dig deeper into the subject, and I came away appreciating communion sacrifices more this year than in times past.
I will check out the link for the Rig-Veda, but I wonder what that text has to offer a Judaeo-Christian account of creation. The two narratives are quite dissimilar in my understanding of the Rig-Veda: Hinduism's entire metanarratival structure drastically parts ways with Judaism and Christianity.
I must say that I don't see what the problem with the Hebrew "et" is. Research the matter and the issue seems pretty lucid--the object of bara seems pretty clear, however one understands bara. See this thread and follow the link to Gesenius: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4933/meaning-of-et%D7%90%D7%AA-and-vet%D7%95%D6%B0%D7%90%D6%B5%D6%A5%D7%AA-in-genesis-11
Even back in Keil-Delitzsch, notice how they explained Genesis 1:1:
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” - Heaven and earth have not existed from all eternity, but had a beginning; nor did they arise by emanation from an absolute substance, but were created by God. This sentence, which stands at the head of the records of revelation, is not a mere heading, nor a summary of the history of the creation, but a declaration of the primeval act of God, by which the universe was called into being. That this verse is not a heading merely, is evident from the fact that the following account of the course of the creation commences with w (and), which connects the different acts of creation with the fact expressed in Gen 1:1, as the primary foundation upon which they rest. בּרשׁיח (in the beginning) is used absolutely, like ἐν ἀρχῇ in Joh 1:1, and מראשׁיח in Isa 46:10. The following clause cannot be treated as subordinate, either by rendering it, “in the beginning when God created ..., the earth was,” etc., or “in the beginning when God created...(but the earth was then a chaos, etc.), God said, Let there be light” (Ewald and Bunsen). The first is opposed to the grammar of the language, which would require Gen 1:2 to commence with הארץ ותּהי; the second to the simplicity of style which pervades the whole chapter, and to which so involved a sentence would be intolerable, apart altogether from the fact that this construction is invented for the simple purpose of getting rid of the doctrine of a creatio ex nihilo, which is so repulsive to modern Pantheism. ראשׁיח in itself is a relative notion, indicating the commencement of a series of things or events; but here the context gives it the meaning of the very first beginning, the commencement of the world, when time itself began. The statement, that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, not only precludes the idea of the eternity of the world a parte ante, but shows that the creation of the heaven and the earth was the actual beginning of all things.
It's obvious, this authors biases the fact that he reaches into the NT and references John 1:1. But he offers nothing really regarding the Hebrew itself.
I have been over this before but the rig Veda is not Hinduism, that's like saying that Genesis IS Christianity. I am convinces that the rig is far older than 1500bce. Abraham came to live in UR there is nothing about before or where he was born. People's exposures to texts is an unknown quantity. But the rig refers to "in the beginning" a number of times. These should not be ignored.
My focus regarding ET is the claim that Hebrew language does not have complexity. It may be concrete but that does not mean that it is anyway simple.
For just a taste of how problematic "simple" language is, see:-
The Enigma of the Hebrew Verbal System, and all the papers that follow.
See:- https://brill.com/view/title/55137
https://www.creationmyths.org/rigveda-10-129-indian-creation/rigveda-10-129-indian-creation-10-table-versions.htm
1) Regarding the quote from Keil-Delitzsch, it's customary in OT scholarship to consider both the Old and New Testament when analyzing a verse. I see nothing wrong with it, as long as the writer makes clear that the original writers would not have had certain ideas about the text. Secondly, they do comment on the Hebrew in the very first part of the quote. Note that K-D say that bereshith is used "absolutely" in Genesis 1:1, not as a construct state. The quote references Isa. 46:10 also. John 1:1 is only references to point out how "the beginning" might be used; many argue that Gen. 1:1 and John 1:1 are talking about the same beginning. See Genesis 1:1 LXX.
2) I remember our conversations about the Rig-Veda, but your comment above implied that the work can shed light on Genesis 1:1 or that it can somehow illuminate our understanding of Jehovah's creative work. If you meant that, I disagree. The text may say "in the beginning," but the accounts are vastly different. The Rig-Veda also may be old, but so is Hinduism: it too is dated to at least 1500 BCE by religion scholars, and the Rig-Veda is commonly thought to be a Hindu text. I seriously doubt that Abraham has any connection to the Rig-Veda. Why should we not think he was born in Mesopotamia? There is no reason to connect Abraham with the Rig-Veda.
3) For the record, the quote in the screenshot did not say that Hebrew is simple or wholly non-complex: he was talking about a very specific sense in which we don't find complexity, namely, in the sense urged by certain scholars regarding Genesis 1:1-3. But he did not write that Hebrew is wholly simple.
4) The main reason I posted the quote concerned whether Genesis 1:1 is an example of the construct state or whether "the beginning" occurs absolutely. I was not focusing on whether Hebrew is simple or not: I know Hebrew is very complex and have never said otherwise.
3)
Rig-Veda: https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/rig-veda
https://www.ancient.eu/The_Vedas/
https://www.creationmyths.org/rigveda-10-129-indian-creation/rigveda-10-129-indian-creation-11-english-versions-synthesized.htm
Beginning - Breath - abyss of water - The gods came later to this world.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/desires-of-a-modern-indian/summarising-the-knowledge-in-rigveda/
1) "many argue that Gen. 1:1 and John 1:1 are talking about the same beginning." - that it equates with the LXX text implies nothing of the sort. Gjohn is full of creation account parallels.
2) The argument is circular - what text and tradition are they claiming goes back to 2000BCE?
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/flagship-project-activities/memory-of-the-world/register/full-list-of-registered-heritage/registered-heritage-page-7/rigveda/
Your post from the British library page is out of date.
https://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jun/20rig.htm
Thanks for telling me the British Library link is out of date: I went with the one that Google gave me, but does it make any difference to the main point?
The expression in GJohn 1:1 is the same as Genesis 1:1 LXX: that doesn't prove the beginnings are the same, but it's quite likely, given the context of 1:1 and the whole Prologue. The most popular explanation of John 1:1 is that they are referring to the same period. That viewpoint might be wrong, but it's currently the scholarly consensus.
My comment above pertained to Hinduism and how old it is, not to a particular text. One site says that Hinduism is 4,000 years old; others give a date of 1500 BCE.
"Sumerian Gilgamesh is older only if you accept AIT and assume Rig Veda as 1900 to 2000 BC. That would be a circular argument. Archeoastronomical evidence suggests from 6500 BC to400 BC as the date of composition of Risgveda. Then Sarasvati is the know in Rigveda much prior to they knowing Sindhu. (3) The Rigveda does not know of brick (ishtika) but Indus valley knows of it. SO Rigveda is older than Harrapa. It was written in East as they know of Saraswati and not Sindhu in earlier portions. Sarsvati is a measure river when Sarasvati is written. It dries up around 2000 BC. So Rigveda is much earlier to Indus valley civilization. IN Mahabharata Sarasvati is in the beginning stages of drying. Hence Mahabharata is also prior to 2000 BC. That alone takes Veda prior to 3000 BC."
Pertaining to John 1:1 and Genesis 1:1, here is one comment among many, from Herman Ridderbos:
1,2 The words "In the beginning," with which the prologue begin, also form the beginning of the book of Genesis and hence of the entire Torah. From this earlier occurrence they derive a solemn, perhaps even sacred, sound. Furthermore, the words that follow in John, the pronouncements concerning the Word, echo what in Genesis 1 constitutes the foundation of God's revelation in the Old Testament and of Israelite religion: God's creation of heaven and earth. All that now follows in the Gospel has to be understood from the perspective of that "beginning": It arises from that beginning, and that beginning is its deepest and most essential Sitz im Leben. Some interpreters even believe that the opening lines of the prologue (vss.24 1:1-5 1-5) can be explicated totally in light of Gn. 1:Iff. P. Borgen in particular21 has argued that the prologue - in total divergence from the way the hymn hypothesis pictures it - forms an inner and independent unity that in its totality can be characterized as an "exposition" of Gn. l:lff. "Thus Jn 1:1-5 is the basic exposition of Gn 1:1-5, while Jn 1:6ff. elaborates upon terms and phrases from Jn 1:1-5." Borgen bases this view not only on the opening words of John 1 and Genesis 1 but also on the central terms "light" and "darkness" in In. 1:4,5 (cf. Gn. 1:2-5). He also claims that the content of vs. 3 in the prologue is nothing other than a "midrashic" paraphrase of Gn. 1: 1: God created "heaven and earth"(cf. vs. 10). Finally, the term "the Word" is probably, says Borgen, an interpretation of and substitution for the repeated "and God said" in Genesis 1, as in vs. 3 this divine speech hypostatizes itself into light .('~and God said ... and there was"), an identification present also in In. 1:10, where the "light" replaces the "Word." There is support in Jewish exegesis, says Borgen, for the
existence of such an identification, namely in Philo, who in his interpretation of Gn. 1:1-3 "moves from the uttered word of God to the concept of Logos in an absolute sense," just as he sometimes attributes to the Logos quite personal features, similarly derived from the creation story, as "God's firstborn,""the beginning," "the Logos."22 This interpretation not only has the merit that it views the prologue as an independent unit, unmixed with a Logos hymn derived from some other source, but also that it shows that the relationship between the prologue and Gn. 1: Iff. not only consists in the first words but continues verbally and materially with the terms "light" "darkness," and "life." But it is another matter whether one can characterize the prologue (especially its beginning) as an "exposition" or midrash of Gn. 1:1-5. The purpose of In. 1:1-5 is not to provide a further exposition of Genesis 1 with an eye to
the coming and work of Christ, by way of a "christological doctrine of creation," but rather the reverse: to give to the Christ-event the fundamental "setting" in which alone it can be understood.
Ok lets clarify, Hindu culture is not the same as what is known as Hindu religion.
The prologue only means anything in the context of the total gospel. CF. Col 1:16 & 1 Peter 3:22. All within there overall context.
The arguments from your quote are less than persuasive, and somewhat non sequitur in their form. That a text omits something does not mean the writer knew nothing about the matter: that simply does not follow logically. In any event, dates for the Vedas are all over the place.
I am only focusing on the rig veda and to my knowledge, it being the oldest is not in dispute.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43727643?seq=1
The majority opinion of scholars for the Vedic age is 1500-1000 BCE. See https://www.historydiscussion.net/history-of-india/vedic-civilization/vedic-civilization-and-culture-in-india-indian-history/6488
That being US scholarship.
To be clear, I never equated Hindu culture with Hindu religion although I see a close link between them. I also understand the complexities of Hindu religion/philosophy.
To me, Ridderbos says the Prologue only means anything within the total Gospel's context, but that alone does not inform its meaning: research the subject of semiotic intertextuality. Texts communicate with other texts as we see in Paul and John. G.K. Beale is good at demonstrating semiotic intertextuality between OT and NT.
We agree on the Rig-Veda being the oldest Veda, but we apparently do not concur on whether it's a Hindu (religious) text. That is cool: I won't belabor the point.
For the record, neither Borgen nor Ridderbos are/were American. My knowledge of scholarship actually goes beyond the US :-)
The point about bricks is like the nonsense about chariots that were actually carts. If the text does talk about building and buildings but no bricks that is significant.
To me Prof Nicholas Kazanas has made some solid arguments for some time now, have they responded?
Just in case I misunderstood your terse remark, scholarship as a whole says the Rig-Veda was produced around 1500 BCE, not just US scholarship.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/cosmology-hindu-cosmology
See https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0195137779.001.0001/acprof-9780195137774-chapter-13
Michael Molloy summarized the debates in his seventh edition, I think, but I found this article about Kazanas: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26491233?seq=1
Kazanas has produced a number of works since 2012.
His latest has an interesting title:-
In the beginning: studies in Vedic and Greek philosophies.
Not read it yet though.
The reason I said US is that I am not blind to the political aspect of this kind of scholarship.
In the same way that western biology is imbued with evolutionism or that western theology is wrapped around the trinity. If you want to get published then tow the line or at least do not step on it.
I like his work because he is neither Indian or American and he comes at this from a better perspective IMO. I go by his reasoning rather than him supposedly misquoting others - if that is actually the case.
https://journal.fi/store/article/view/51787/16150
Not sure I would want to hang to much on what Molloy has to say.
I've got some of Kazanas' work, but my primary focus/interest is Judaism and Christianity: I don't think many US scholars have interacted with Kazanas and I've actually read more from UK scholarship than American when it comes to Hinduism.
Have you read Khare, Ambarish. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, vol. 96, 2015, pp. 104–106. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/26858226. Accessed 2 Apr. 2021.
A review of Kazanas.
Molloy is a generalist, a religion scholar. His work is a standard in the field and what he has to say is representative of the religion field, but I don't read him uncritically. However, on the question of Hinduism's age and the Rig-Veda, I accept his position. And he's not alone.
http://indiafacts.org/book-review-vedic-indo-european-studies-nicholas-kazanas/
https://www.stephen-knapp.com/aryan_invasion_theory_the_final_nail_in_its_coffin.htm
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/rare-ancient-dna-south-asia-reveals-complexities-little-known-civilization-180973053/
No invasion here, it's all about trade - as usual. Plenty of ties between Mesapotamia and India.
Cant think where to post this, but it has been in our recent discussions so I will leave it here:-
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/39271264.pdf
see IMPLICATIONS regarding Logos.
https://www.softpowermag.com/ancient-european-culture-originated-in-a-fuller-and-richer-form-of-the-vedic-civilisation/
Don't you think it's a little exaggagerated to claim that the Aryan Invasion theory has been killed and buried? :-) Someone needs to alert the guild.
The article about Harappa and Mesopotamia points out that the civilization is shrouded in mystery; even if trade existed between the IVC and Mespotamia, that tells us nothing directly about Abraham. I've seen no credible evidence that he was not native to Mesopotamia. None at all.
I may already have the one file above, but I'll see.
Rendsburg on the birthplace of Abraham: https://www.thetorah.com/article/ur-kasdim-where-is-abrahams-birthplace
I am amazed that anyone ever believed that Arian invasion could even be called a theory as I has no basis in evidence, it just sprang out of certain people's imagination. A bit like our discussion regarding Hislop or those who were supposed to be the experts on near Eastern biblical geography, who had never actually been their.
https://www.deccanherald.com/national/new-dna-study-challenges-aryan-invasion-theory-759635.html
"Several scholars, however, are not yet ready to bury the Aryan invasion theory for good even though they agree that the study opens up a new avenue for research."
What I find interesting about this research is that there are a number of other Indian English newspapers that claim the very same data proves there theory, however, they do not look at the wider picture of Indian DNA travelling outwards.
There arguments will rage on I am sure but the theory , as far as evidence goes, it's done.
https://brill.com/abstract/journals/phro/59/3/article-p181_1.xml?rskey=tBJ9bB&result=2
www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2019/sep/15/its-all-in-the-genes-does-dna-call-bluff-on-aryan-invasion-theory-2032707.amp
The politics.
Thanks for sharing. For the record, I'm not committed to the Aryan invasion theory: I let the scholars work that out. Other things interest me more, but I still find scholars who continue subscribing to the idea. I'm sure some even think they can support it with evidence.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-herkimer-worldcivilization/chapter/disappearance-of-the-indus-valley-civilization/
What I always find interesting is when they talk about climate change "theory" when it has always been an observable fact, and they generally omit the important factor - deforestation & the rise of cattle culture.
Observable in the fertile crescent, Egypt, Greece, China, etc.
It is observable now, in the amazon basin.
Cattle culture does not require an invasion, it just a case of cause - the inability to produce grain on mass, & effect - using the food that can exist in this type of after terrain.
Yeah, but you know that "theory" has a technical meaning in science just like it does in philosophy. Like gravitational theory.
From what I've read about climate change, some articles do talk about deforestation and the rise of cattle culture. I know NPR had an article some time ago dealing with the subject.
Again, invasion is probably too strong of a word; so "migration" seems to be replacing it.
But again the theories do not fit the data & the human tendancy to opt for the low hanging fruit. Cultures began with horticulture that developed into civilisations of agriculture that end up as nomad pastoralists. In the UK orchards were a good indicator of culture but - https://www.commonground.org.uk/save-our-orchards/#:~:text=About%20two%20thirds%20of%20Britain's,orchards%20simply%20fade%20with%20neglect.
In China areas of land have been rehabilitated by just removing the live stock for a couple of decades.
People become nomad pastoralists. It does not require an special migration of skills. People can start out as pastoralists but as the herds grow the enevitably become nomadic, or they die. Any given area can only provide so much & trees and larger bushes are never allowed to mature. People always need to mimic predators who drive the heard through the landscape. Hence the need for culling - sacrifice.
See https://etd.library.emory.edu/downloads/7m01bm177?locale=en
A study on sacrifice.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10814-016-9094-7
https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/271860/1-s2.0-S1040618216X00316/1-s2.0-S1040618216000884/Elisabeth_Anne_Hildebrand_Northeast_Africa_2016.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEK3%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIADGP3z7nM4ig5m%2BorU6Q9KBal4aEG4ldaik068rgMZXAiA%2B%2BwASg2AZGst6saMAl395DTxjsEs4zC%2BD0UgGOhYuniq9Awj2%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F8BEAMaDDA1OTAwMzU0Njg2NSIMUgHnaiTpkuQ7t3D%2FKpEDH8q5G%2FrRmp7I4eAkMZ5p5IHU%2FcXSjEXq56yWu0j2kE5CAcqVWHp6HfclEpXIwLcHF%2BXyQG1Y0Ec4YDYRLeT2obbIUJB7s0RPl5EM5SbxuS3QQ5tG%2Fkz3iIDByrOa8llxNcBO%2FD0n%2FX99K34zrcNppuo7JP9fxu4SyPTiRs%2FdXxlOFomA6Gh%2B0PE1ycxFDFhriiq%2F6TW0OFjhj2nDkRoLnrrLZ1YKGBBI8E0AKgvzSIdcdPZx8%2FNOJ9JAr10C5HFJhvy6%2BQAws%2FSpV2weuk3S4dUBEKd6sCeruz2JoZ29LD7Ul8461b9NCvuGAUV2QpJ2gYhnPZ%2B2MldpUjBbXY29jWt01ATMmliD3mZtwtyhbk9WVSG90Ih47iw0Zd45lo1oziDDXYY5%2Fj50ZEFkdS02Ee6L6xY71k59L61oMRsWlrW%2B45kMiOgOvTs%2BDVDiwBOmSTU5TBpg9xFytgpHW2iqOOUHMvrajeSiDzp87G5OPowyoXRrsC%2BMYnXsCYkBtNSagfrWtq56KePL9anddWwMI0MwoMqogwY67AEgbURUnNmA33MQ4SUfOylmYkzB9UyKKkgEp6ZHGofFNUx94OiF1UgpmpqI7QP48fx3PBhFo8G5B%2FdC7hWwPEOX%2BfOwEy%2BinkJc5B4wUTUYAZFbwSvz4Dtu9%2FCazCD%2BUwXJHDuBc5J8KXIygOs0Ogd4v3li9HDMppLA1PNIAtNaB3NXa4iUZVs%2F5DKW7KISnCGGsbUnoFSo4J%2BdOW3lkdg7UHc%2FwwcYmP%2BPhQaWwc9RnJbwZIYlIWYRJYy2xLdOuKmSc5Au91VuXzhUNaN5N%2BynKav0VVfOtSRCA8Vh8AJUQlSvEV7pMQbsQrhsow%3D%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20210404T213546Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTY57QPTFTL%2F20210404%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=3fa004e32ea843ba61b78b5b0608466b3e71622218ce2a4deab8e690b1839f9b&hash=f39e0461523a06f0bad842b14f0f5e6444f0815a1c31dd8ec1bd2df96191e239&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S1040618216000884&tid=pdf-1a641aa8-8235-40de-820b-abfddb6c8d6f&sid=40d70c134c4ba245e99bb9a-0fb94a59a927gxrqb&type=client
Early Anatolian farmers' diet: https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-10/mpif-coe100118.php
https://www.shh.mpg.de/1070374/isba2018_programm.pdf
O–DAN–06
Food for thought – concentration dependent isotopic mixing models applied to data from early Neolithic Turkey and
Greece
S. Sebald1
, A. Papathanasiou2
, M. P. Richards3
, G. Grupe1
1
Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Martinsried, Germany
2
Greek Ministry of Culture, Athens, Greece
3
Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada
Collagen stable isotopes (d13C, d15N) in archaeological human bones are commonly used to describe the trophic level (d15N)
and the food source (C3-plants vs. C4-plants, marine vs. terrestrial; d13C).
The results are interpreted by bivariate plots and univariate statistics. This method permits the assessment of the gross trophic
level of an individual or the whole population. However, an isotopic sourcing reveals much more information about the
biomass contribution of selected food end-members.
Since it is assumed that the Neolithic transition was accompanied by dietary change, stable isotopic ratios of human and
animal bones from the early Neolithic site of Nevalı Çori (Turkey: ca 8500 BCE), and five neolithic sites in Greece (Alepotrypa:
ca. 6000-3200 BCE, Franchthi: ca. 6000-3000 BCE, Mavropigi: ca. 6600-6000 BCE, Theopetra: ca. 6500-4000 BCE, Xirolimni: ca.
6100 BCE) were re-interpreted by use of concentration-dependent mixing models provided by IsoConc and SISUS. While the
largely vegetarian diet of the humans from Nevalı Çori was confirmed, new staples became visible in the later Greek
populations indicative of a changing subsistence economy.
One thing to be wary of:-
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/31/dig-reveals-6000-year-old-salt-hub-in-north-yorkshire
"Earlier research on pottery found at Street House showed lipid deposits, indicating the presence of dairy products and suggesting a society that was moving away from hunter-gathering to a more settled farming lifestyle reliant on growing crops and keeping animals."
Lipids that could be from any amnimal meat, eg. Deer.
The assumption is that hunter gather existed before the transition & opposed to horticulture, but there is now significant evidence for starch centred diets.
Also, see:-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/yorkshire-salt-archaeology-neolithic-britain-b1824440.html
This demonstrates how a small sample of lipids can be extrapolated in to a significant cattle culture - in the wrong terrain!
"According to isotopic analyses of archaeological human remains from Turkey, meat consumption appears to increase between the ninth and seventh millennia BC. At Nevalı Çori, during the PPNB, the human diet was mainly vegetarian (Lösch, Grupe, Peters, 2006), whereas at the Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük, meat was an important part of the diet (Pearson et al., 2015)"
Post a Comment