Gen.1.1,2 Complete Exegesis 12.27.16.doc (original) (raw)

Genesis 1:2 -The Linguistic problem

The term "Linguistic Problems" is used because of the tendency, expressed several times in my suggested approach, to prefer neutral ones. However, as clearing linguistic problems is the basis of all that has been done in my research on the book of Genesis, 1 a further elaboration on method is imperative, in regard to my suggestions for a secular approach to the creation-paragraphs. The analysis of words carried out is not on etymology (account of a word's formation and sense-development) or philology (science of the structure and development of language), or comparison with other languages. It is more on semantics (on usage and meanings derived from the Biblical text). This approach, to a large extent, corresponds to what P. J. Smith 2 calls "Semotaxis", i.e., "a semantic evaluation of a given word or phrase in terms of specific sphere or meaning, by analyzing the content in which a relevant word or phrase is used". As stated in the introduction, the possible meaning for a word has been chosen from Steinberg's The Bible Dictionary (Hebrew) and compared with other commentaries; except for a few cases elaborated upon, no further linguistic investigation is presented in the discussion. However, a process of thought and elimination of possibilities has been carried out all along, although it is not always fully expressed in the research or the footnotes, due to the fact that it is literary orientated. The following paragraphs are an example to the research's treatment of a linguistic problem in the translation of the underlined Hebrew expressions in a chosen verse (1:2):

THE SYNTACTIC-PRAGMATIC FUNCTION OF GENESIS 1:1-2 IN THE CREATION NARRATIVE

The relationship between Gen 1:1-2 and the rest of the first chapter of the Hebrew Bible has occasioned a long scholarly debate, which has produced in its wake a considerable amount of literature. The divergence and polarity of views on these verses seem to result from the atomistic nature of traditional approaches in biblical studies. Approaching the text from the perspective of grammatical textlinguistics and pragmatics, this article has yielded results that both confirm and reshape scholarly thinking on Gen 1:1-2. This fresh look at the text brings with it a re-interpretation of ‫בראשׁית‬ "in the beginning." Gen 1:1-2 presents as antecedent information that succinctly relates a previous act of creation. Thus understood, the pragmatic function of ‫בראשׁית‬ is to distinguish this previous creation (vv. 1-2) from the six-day creation in (vv. 3-31), particularly to indicate that ‫השׁמי‬ ‫ם‬ and ‫הארץ‬ (v. 1) were not created on ‫אחד‬ ‫יום‬ (i.e., the first day of the six-day creation). The article, therefore, demonstrates that the textlinguistic/pragmatic approach promises a fresh avenue for understanding and interpreting the biblical text, especially such difficult passages as Gen 1:1-2.

TRADITION AND INTERPRETATION IN GEN 1:1– 2:4a

In the beginning of the 20th century several scholars (B. Stade, F. Schwally, J. Morgenstern) argued that Gen 1:1–2:4a consists of two different layers: one containing a “Tatbericht” (account of the divine act) and the other consisting of a “Wortbericht” (account of the creative divine word). This view became dominant in scholarship. However, the detailed study of O.H. Steck (1975) arguing for the literary unity of the story marked an important turning-point, the impact of which continues to be felt strongly today. This article critically examines the arguments of Steck, especially his interpretation of the “ ויהי כן -formula” ("and it was so"). This is followed by observations of important differences of specific motifs and particularities of language between the "divine-word"-statements and "divine-act"-statements. For example, in the "word-account" God collaborates with other entities such as the firmament, sea, earth, but the "act-account" attributes creative activity to God alone. The analysis leads to the conclusion that the "word-account" represents the older “skeleton” of Gen 1, while the "act-layer" consists of later additions that refine the earlier account with their own theological accents. Since the vocabulary and the theological view of the later "act-statements" can be associated with the priestly document (Pg), the early "divine word account" should be taken as another sign (in addition to, for instance, Gen 5)that P is based on – at least to some extent – identifiable sources.

The Syntax of Genesis 1:1-3

Journal for Semitics, 2022

It is well known that Gen 1:1-3 contains considerably more linguistic complexity than readers may initially notice. As the first verses in the Hebrew Bible, they have engendered significant theological and scholarly analysis and been caught up in the modern "creation-science" debate. Yet, for all this attention, the linguistic details are often overlooked or, in some cases, disregarded in favour of ideologically-bound analyses that preference tradition over plain grammatical sense. In this essay, I address two basic linguistic issues methodically: (1) the grammar of the first orthographic word, bereshit, and its implications for the syntactic analysis of verse 1, and (2) the syntactic analysis of verse 2. I conclude that there are only two linguistically plausible analyses of Gen 1:1-3, neither of which matches the traditional rendering "In the beginning, God created ... ".

Genesis 1.1 as the first act of creation

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 2019

In contrast to the contemporary trend of reading Gen. 1.1 as either a heading to the chapter or a subordinate clause, this essay argues that the verse can be responsibly read as the first step in the process of creation. In particular, it is argued that attending to the two senses of ‘heaven’ in biblical Hebrew is a necessary prerequisite for reading Gen. 1.1. Moreover, the final form of Gen. 1 reveals the use of both bipartite and tripartite cosmological formulae. Taking these observations seriously lays the foundation for reading Gen. 1.1 as the first step in the process of creation. In turn, it is argued that this reading of the narrative is theologically suggestive.

Genesis 1 1 is a summary statement revised 14 01 2025

In this paper we argue for the summary statement interpretation of Gen 1.1. First, we show that Gen 1.1-2 is marked as background information and vv. 1 and 2 are not in chronological sequence. Then we examine the meanings of the lexical items in Gen 1.1. The noun rēʾšîṯ 'beginning' does not mean "beginning" in the sense of 'first of a chronological sequence.' Gen 1.1 is therefore not reporting an initial historical event. The Hebrew verb bārāʾ in Gen 1.1 means 'create, separate (as by cutting)' (Van Leeuwen, 1997: 728-35). Therefore, this action could not have produced an earth (ʾereṣ) described as tōhû wāḇōhû 'without form and void' in Gen 1.2. The Hebrew noun ʾĕlōhîm 'Elohim' also shows that Gen 1.1 cannot be describing a historical event. The Hebrew language did not exist in the beginning and the plural form ʾĕlōhîm is derived from the singular form ʾēlōah. The expression haššāmayim wəhāʾāreṣ in Gen 1.1 is a spatial merism for the whole of creation. Here haššāmayim must refer to the heavens created in Gen 1.6-7 and hāʾāreṣ must refer to the earth created in 1.9 for haššāmayim wəhāʾāreṣ in Gen 1.1 to function as a spatial merism. We then show that the days of creation are enumerated as an itemized list beginning with cardinal number ʾeḥāḏ 'one.' This means the days of creation are arranged topically rather than chronologically in a pattern of three days of forming functional domains and three days of filling those domains with functionaries. The days of creation are therefore an elaboration on Gen 1.1 and not events chronologically subsequent to Gen 1.1. The Bible uses numbers symbolically to represent concepts such as perfection, completion, fulfilment, totality, wholeness, etc., rather than mathematically to count things. The pattern of 3 + 3 + 1 = 7 is therefore symbolic rather than literal. It is not a count of the days of creation. In the ancient world the act of naming something meant bringing it into existence. God names the fundamental components of the universe created in the first three days and thus brings the heavens and the earth into existence at this stage of the narrative. In Gen 1.1-2.3 God's creation is pronounced as being ṭôḇ meaning 'good, everything in its appropriate place, beneficial' at different stages of the process. This expresses the chaos (disorder) to cosmos (order) motif of Gen 1.1-2.3. This process is completed when the creation is declared to be "very good" (Gen 1.31) and "finished" (Gen 2.1). Many Scriptures (e.g., Exo 20.11, 31.17) affirm that God made the heavens and the earth in six days and not in a single creative event in Gen 1.1. One objection to the summary statement interpretation of Gen 1.1 is that it presupposes in v. 2 the existence of chaotic pre-existent matter before the work of creation began in v. 3. In the discussion of creation ex nihilo it is argued that the Greek-derived concepts of creation ex nihilo and creation ex materia would have been unknown to Gen 1.1-3.