Scholars differ on the answer to the question posed in this blog entry, but to take the position that it has to be construct, as some Youtubers/TikTokers claim, is just wrong. I will cite some informative websites to demonstrate my point:
See https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/hebrew-and-you-with-lee-m-fields-is-gen-11-a-subordinate-idea-or-a-main-clause for a discussion of the grammatical possibilities
https://winebrenner.edu/2019/04/15/examining-translations-of-genesis-11-in-relation-to-genesis-11-3-part-one/
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3126&context=auss
Good dissertation here: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3126&context=auss
Tip of the iceberg.
Saturday, February 24, 2024
Is Genesis 1:1 in The Construct State Or Is It Absolute?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Nathan Chambers, has done great work on this, here's his volume on it:
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781646021024/html?lang=en
It's way too expensive, but you can find articles of his on the internet.
and his thesis:
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/12443/
I find the confidence that popular scholars state that Genesis 1:1 does NOT teach creation ex nihilo (or anything like it) a little irritating. They then go on to say it's not even in the bible and was invented in the second century, I think that's highly debatable and I think it's wrong. One thing I've notived is that often those scholars who make such pronouncements are quite unlearned in theology, and often don't respect theology as a discipline, which makes it really difficult for them to speak intelligently on creation ex-nihilo, especially since there are things that, although do not explicitly claim ex-nihilo, imply it.
Agree with you 100% about Chambers and the ex nihilo issue. I have his dissertation and other stuff he's done. I once posted a thread about his dissertation, but still appreciate you talking about him again.
Another problem on biblical studies is the starting-point of disregarding the supernatural ab initio.
The supernatural that no one observes today but was everywhere in the past, that one?
Please tell me why a "good dissertation" on the understanding of a Hebrew text based on Hebrew grammar would give a nod to John 1:1-3 ??????
Very good and true point about the historical methods starting point. I wrote something about that recently here.
https://musingontheology.wordpress.com/2023/12/17/plutarch-on-supernatural-accounts/#more-1211
Pannenberg also has interesting thoughts on historical method and theology.
The supernatural is all around you, if you loook closely plus God works in our lives, if we let him. Romans 1:20, Philippians 2:13.
You should know the reason why we don't see miraculous works today, but I like for people to do their own research.
Guess which Hebrew account greatly influenced John 1:1-3? They are connected theologically and linguistically.
Don't know if you read much of the actual dissertation, but the author writes: "The most notable use and interpretation of Genesis 1:1 in the New Testament
is from John 1: 1-3,"
Etc.
He talks about the LXX and so on.
Roman, I think you know that Pannenberg is one of my favorite writers in the field of theology. His thoughts on method and history are incisive.
https://youtu.be/9j98PtJxn7A?si=h9EOdnfSFOhj67-r
Who cares what influenced John with a paper that is supposed to be dealing with Hebrew?
Dissertation title: A CASE FOR THE TRADITIONAL TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 1:1 BASED UPON A MULTI-LEVELED LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS
Answer is in the title.
Irrelevant, we already know that lxx does reinterpret other verses and ideas, like sons of god becoming angels, to mention just one.
It's common to review previous research in a dissertation plus he's dealing with translation and interpretation plus the study is multilevel. No surprise that he includes NT information.
One can't fully understand the interpretation of Genesis 1:1 without invoking the NT.
There interpretation on the back of the lxx - still irrelevant to the Hebrew.
Duncan, what's wrong with appealing to reception history as an exegetical argument? Not that it's conclusive but certainly it's not irrelevant, especially if the language isn't conclusive.
I totally disagree that the LXX has no impact on interpreting the Hebrew. There are numerous examples where the Hebrew is elucidated or clarified by studying the LXX. Start with Gen. 1:1.
https://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/study-here/mphil/OldTestament/StudySeptuagint
"The Septuagint remains an important witness to the text and interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in antiquity."
"The Septuagint remains an important witness to the text and interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in antiquity." - Antiquity is a nonsense word - be more specific?
Antiquity is a nonsense word? Okay. :-)
It's a synonym for "ancient" and the abstract nominal form.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antiquity
https://web.library.yale.edu/cataloging/hebraica/about-hebrew
I thought scholarship was about precision, antiquity like antique could be 100 years old!!!
Why are you even wasting the time to post junk like that, you know full well what I am getting at.
Sure, you can call it Biblical Hebrew because that is about all we have from the period.
But with the advent of the DSS finds and all the other works I am not sure that biblical Hebrew is even a thing now.
I wondered why you were wasting my time by asking me to define "antiquity." You know we're talking about ancient Hebrew and Greek on this site. You must know I'm not talking about 100-year old Hebrew: that is not what scholars mean by ancient.
This might help: my specialty in grad school was ancient church history. The focus was 100-600 CE. That is what scholars usually mean when they say "ancient" or antiquity. I don't know anybody who calls Hebrew or Greek from 100 yrs. ago ancient unless they're speaking loosely or joking. Even Wikipedia is aware of this distinction and I think Jeff Benner knows it.
Biblical Hebrew is still taught.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Hebrew
https://books.google.com/books?id=EYWOAwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22ancient+hebrew%22+grammar&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi9gdXQ-MmEAxUjFlkFHfiUBO4Q6AF6BAgMEAI#v=onepage&q=%22ancient%20hebrew%22%20grammar&f=false
Ancient Hebrew Periodization and the Language of the Book of Jeremiah
You really think I as asking you to " define "antiquity."" AS A WORD ??????
How about defining by age which I see you have now done in any case & I am talking about older than that, oh wait a minute, isn't that still antiquity? Get the point?
Not sure why you posted that book? As this is not Biblical Hebrew but rather the Hebrew of Jeremiah. To say biblical is anachronistic. In that book it does say "and non biblical DSS" and "extra biblical".
https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Intertestamental-literature
"A small portion of this literature is preserved in the original languages: Hebrew,...."
Was biblical Hebrew penned 100-600 CE ???
I thought you knew what antiquity meant, but it's not a nonsense word at all. However, if you review what I posted from the august university of Cambridge (UK), "antiquity" (the uni's words) was used within the context of mentioning the Hebrew Bible. For me, it's standard usage to think of ancient Hebrew as being much older than 100 years: it's even beyond the Middle ages (going backwards in time). Hence, my confusion at your seeming confusion. Besides Cambridge used "antiquity," not me.
I did not mean that biblical Hebrew was penned between those years: I was illustrating how people in the field of theology, biblical studies, etc. use words like ancient/antiquity. Just like when I teach "ancient philosophy."
Antiquity/ancient covers a large swath, yes. But I thought we all here understood that already. Sorry for assuming :-)
The Hebrew of Jeremiah is "biblical Hebrew." Tell me what I'm missing since Jeremiah is not intertestamental and the book is canonical.
So Jeremiah uses the same Hebrew words and structures as other works. I don't think so. We have all the same diachronic issues to deal with. When we are dealing with these texs, if we use the NT texts as an example are dated +/-50 or +/-100 years by many methods, these we tend not to have for the OT, unless we are referring to the DSS dates. Incidentally when Benner uses the term biblical and/or ancient Hebrew his only focus is the Pentateuch. When I have queried him on word selection and usage in later texts he tends not to comment as they have clearly changed in one way or another. So the understanding of the individual books if far more granular.
This brings me to another point when comparing Mt to LXX, the time span covered by the LXX for the complete Tanakh translation.
I know that many books refer to Biblical Hebrew just as some do to NT Greek but it is a fairly arbitrary pidgin-holing. And in particular when it comes to the shear background influence of Hellenization the Greek must be suspect. It would be interesting to get a comparison from LXX to other old Greek translations on these words where the semantic range of overlap seems suspect.
https://mellenpress.com/book/Structure-and-Composition-of-Jeremiah-502-5158/1964/
https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004320253/B9789004320253_013.xml
Im sure studies are out there that discuss/analyze LXX translation techniques.
I have found the second edition NEB translation of Jeremiah as it breaks those segments apart with useful images that help to picture it's structure, but to be honest I have not spent a great deal of time analyzing the text.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raK2Hu_1lY0
Post a Comment