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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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 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
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.
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.
Post a Comment