Genesis 1:1-3

The opening lines of the Torah lend themselves to more than one interpretation and may have nothing to do with creation ex nihilo. So, for example, ...

---

The common translation reflects that of the Jewish Publication Society (JPS)

In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth.

Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of G-d hovered over the face of the water.

And G-d said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.

However, according to the highly proclaimed and authoritative Stone Edition Tanach renders the 1st verse as ...

In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth

... and treats verse to as a parenthetical.


Similarly, Etz Hayim offers ...

When God began to create heaven and earth

-- the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water --

God said: "Let there be light"; and there was light.

... and notes in its commentary:

1. When God began to create The conventional English translation reads: "In the begining God created the heaven and the earth." The translation presented here looks to verse 3 for the completion of the sentence and takes verse 2 to be parenthetical, describing the state of things at the time when God first spoke. Support for understanding the text in this way comes from the second half of 2:4 and of 5:1, both of which refer to Creation and begin with the word "when".


2. unformed and void The Hebrew for this phrase (tohu va-vohu) means "desert waste." The point of the narrative is the idea of order that results from divine intent. There is no suggestion here that God made the world out of nothing, which is a much later conception.

​

What we have in the more modern translations of the Torah is not creation ex nihilo but the creation of order out of chaos, i.e., "First Cause" is simply not addressed.

Torah ... er, oops ... Bible Study.

Interesting comment ... I'm nothing close to conversant on "Hebrew tradition". What does appear to be true is that Genesis 1:1-3 does not speak of creation ex nihilo. Against what is found in the early JPS and most if not all Christian "Old Testaments", the rendition presented here can be found in the Stone Tanach, the new JPS Tanakh, Etz Hayim, Alter, and Friedman (the latter two being personal favorites).It is interesting that the Etz Hayim commentary notes: Further support is found in Rashi: Finally, we have Isaiah 43:10 ... Here we have existence both before and after God!

OK, I'll make you a deal: I'll remember if you'll read this "older" account (beginning in the middle of Genesis 2:4) and tell me its relevance to the topic at hand.

No. I am saying that the JPS (1917) translation is "In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth", and that this matches all Christian Bibles of which I am aware - including the Septuagint. In my view, "in the beginning God created" differs from "when God began to create" precisely in that the former suggest a beginning and, therefore, creation ex nihilo, while the latter does not. OK, although (a) I'm not how that suggestion is relevant to this topic, and (b) that's not what the Tanach suggests in Isaiah 45:7. Like most people,I have read Friedman in lieue of reading Wellhausen. My sense is that he overstates his case. You might find Schniedewind, likewise The Pentateuch. While it seems clear that the Torah is conflated lore, poetry, propaganda, etc., I can't escape the feeling that JEDP is simplistic and predicated upon a maximalist view of Biblical history. I could certainly be wrong.More to the point, however, is that the so-call second creation myth seems very local in scope and, as I suggested above, seems to have little or no bearing on the whole question of creation ex nihilo.This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 11-10-2005 02:18 PM

Perhaps, but only to the extent that Culture{Gen1} is dependent upon and reflects Culture{Gen2}. My concern is that we are unnecessarily stacking presuppositions. Yes - a local one.In my opinion, the more interesting question is when, why, and how did we come by a different rendition of Gen. 1:1-3 in the Torah and do so with so little effect on the Old Testament.

Or Genesis 2 is from a newer culture arising in the hill country and trying to piggyback Midrash atop an older Semitic Cosmology, or the abrupt refocus on the earth and Adam and Eve was akward redaction, or ...Your interpretation may be perfectly right ... or not.

buzsaw, randman:Respectfully, what each of you believe is entirely irrelevant to the topic, that topic being the intended communication of B'reishit (Genesis) 1:1-3. Please pursue your Christian apologetics elsewhare.

Midrash tells us how Jewish sages perceived the text; to dismiss it impresses me as sophomoric. So, for example, a Midrash that cautions us "not to speculate on the origins of God or what may have existed before Creation" suggests a recognition that the opening lines of Genesis are conducive to such speculation. This, in turn, serves as evidence supporting the Etz Hayim translation against, for example, that found in the 1917 JPS Tanakh, which is precisely why the Etz Hayim commentary references it.

Nor do I, much as I have little if any interest in strawmen.Again, the Etz Hayim commentary notes: What does this tell us?

1. Those who created and sustained the Midrash were pretty superstitious.
2. Those who created and sustained the Midrash saw Gen. 1:1-3 as leaving the "First Cause" question unresolved and, in response, evolved the position that such questions were out of scope.

The Midrash is helpful, not because it is methodologically sound, but because it reflects how the text was understood by respected teachers who had spent their lives studying Torah. It is my contention that this Midrash suggests that Genesis 1:1-3 was understood as addressing the creation of order out of pre-existing chaos.

Herepton:Thank you for you input. It is rare to to see comments which manage to be simultaneously terse, inane, and sophomoric. Yes, please. Please site the scholarship that adresses the intent of the Stone Edition Tanach rendering. Or, should you prefer, retract this childish ad hominem before you further embarrass yourself.As to the nature of the word "Elohim", let me first note that the issue raised is wholly irrelevant. The counterposition here is bewteen two distinct conceptualizations:

1. "in the beginning, when {X} ...", and
2. "when {X} began ...".

It matters little whether {X} is singular or plural, God or Pixie. Nevertheless, since you seem so intent on impressing us with shallow and simplistic pedantry, let me add:

1. I have no doubt that the nascent Israelite religion was henotheistic. This has been well supported by the likes of Frank Moore Cross, Mark S. Smith, Emanuel Tov, Ziony Zevit, and others, and is precisely what one might expect given what we know of Israelite ethnogenesis.
2. None of this, however, requires that we view this instance of Elohim as anything more than an instance of the royal or majestic 'we', as is suggested by the fact that the associated verb is singular.

Certainly there is nothing here to support your silly ad hominem. I find "New Testament" fables and apologetics underwhelming. Nonsense ...

quote:

---

The Hebrew stem of the word translated as "create" is used in the Bible only for divine creativity. It signifies that the created object is unique, depends solely on God for its coming into existence, and is beyond the ability of humans to reproduce. The verb never means "to create out of nothing."

​

- see Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary

---

quote:

---

The English verb “create” captures well the meaning of the Hebrew term in this context. The verb ‘ (bara’) always describes the divine activity of fashioning something new, fresh, and perfect. The verb does not necessarily describe creation out of nothing (see, for example, v. 27, where it refers to the creation of man); it often stresses forming anew, reforming, renewing (see Ps 51:10; Isa 43:15, 65:17).

​

- see bible.org; Gen 1 note 3

---

This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 11-18-2005 12:56 PM

So you claim, but it is the baseless claim of one seeking to fabricate support for his trinity fantasy and altogether worthless. It is not only a baseless claim but, also, a baseless ad hominem from a Christian apologist implying pious fraud on the part of the translaters of the Tanach. One can but wonder on whose authority you pontificate about what constitutes "a mainstay of orthodox Jewry" or why, for that matter, Etz Hayim (much less Alter and Friedman) should be committed to such a mainstay. You made a claim about "bara". Substantiate it. Your speculation is as worthless as your apologetics, while your implication of some Jewish conspiracy in interpretation is ludicrous bordering on antisemitic.

Please refrain from further polluting the thread with unsubstantiated nonsense.

quote:

---

Dr. Gene Scott earned his Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education at California's prestigious Stanford University in 1957; in 1992, he was the featured cover story for the Stanford Alumni Magazine. For over 40 years he has served as an ordained minister, including 15 years in the mission field and in executive capacities with major Protestant denominations and educational institutions, 15 years of which he was a Director, Vice President and President of the denomination before refusing re-election to concentrate on the Los Angeles pastorate.

​

- see drgenescott.org

---

I couldn't find the part suggesting any credentials whatsoever in the field of Biblical Hebrew, nor anything at all suggesting critical scholarship. You two clearly deserve one another.

FYI: Herapton's authority ...