A Response to Ellen Van Wolde on Genesis 1

Scholars are known to succumb to the temptation of suggesting that their findings are of revolutionary significance even if they are not. It’s an issue of framing. If the desire of your heart is to be a revolutionary, you will frame your findings in opposition to all previous interpretation. This appears to be the path that Ellen Van Wolde has chosen (note this press report; for a first reaction, see Doug Chaplin here). Based on her recent findings – most of which do not seem unusual – she asserts: “The traditional view of God the Creator is untenable now.” At the very least, saying something like that is a surefire way to attract attention.

Below the jump, text, translation, and commentary on Genesis 1:1-3. My thesis: the traditional view of God the Creator is as tenable as ever.

בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ

וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ

וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵי תְהוֹם

וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל־פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר וַיְהִי־אוֹר

When God began to create sky and land,
and the land was welter and waste,
with darkness on the surface of the deep
and the spirit of God hovering over the water’s surface,
God said, “Let there be light!” And there was light.

It’s complicated syntax – similar to that at the beginning of the creation accounts of Enuma Elish, the Atrahasis Epic, and Gen 2:4b-7 (compare 5:1). Long before EE and AE were discovered, Rashi and Ibn Ezra understood the syntax of Gen 1:1-3 along the above lines. That is, they understood Gen 1:1 to be a temporal clause which introduces that which follows, not an independent main clause. Those who read the text thus differ with respect to the identification of the main clause, with most, as above, taking “God said” as the main clause, rather than “the land was welter and waste.”

A short list of eminent Hebraists who read the syntax along the above lines: Rashi, Ibn Ezra (misidentifying however the matrix clause), Ewald, Dillmann, Humbert (misidentifying however the matrix clause), Speiser, and Francis Andersen; recently, Robert Holmstedt (who offers an analysis in terms of a type of relative clause: [UPDATE: go here and here]). NJPSV and Robert Alter translate accordingly. “Welter and waste” is Alter’s translation of תהו ובהו . The New English Bible (NEB) reads something like a compromise:

In the beginning of creation,
when God made heaven and earth,
the earth was without form and void,
with darkness over the face of the abyss,
and a mighty wind that swept over the surface of the waters.
God said, ‘Let there be light’, and there was light.

REB wimped out and returned to the more familiar translation: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” NRSV, somewhat like NEB, tries to have it both ways: “In the beginning, when God created . . . , the earth was unformed and void. . . . Then God said.”  

On the understanding of Genesis 1 I here re-propose, something of the process of divine creation is described in Gen 1. God is a faber who works with pre-existing materials. The description of water as pre-existing in 1:2 is the narrative presupposition in 1:6. On this understanding, the narrative presupposes the transformation of pre-existent waste and welter into land, with overt narration in 1:9 of its appearance as properly configured land, by divine decree, in the midst of pre-existent water.

The creation ex nihilo and by divine fiat of sky in the midst of pre-existent water is recounted in 1:6. Darkness is also pre-existent, per 1:2. Light is the first thing recounted to have been created ex nihilo and by divine fiat, in 1:3. This serves to raise “light” to the preeminent position in the hierarchy of creation. It is hard not to think of this as anything other than an exceedingly forceful theological statement with echoes in countless other passages, e.g. Psalms 19 and 104.

Later reflection on God as Creator led to a generalization of the ex nihilo principle. The generalization is compatible with Gen 1.

Gen 1 is concerned with (1) the sequential fashioning of the components of creation and (2) assignment of relative functions - on (2), John Walton has written persuasively. Genesis 1, correctly understood, does not imply that darkness, chaotic stuff, and the abyss existed at an absolute beginning, or non-beginning, co-eternal with an eternal God. The text does not recount an absolute beginning.

Genesis 1-2:4b recounts how God began and completed the creation of heaven and earth and all that is in them. There is a nice inclusio, with 2:1-3 picking up in a variety of ways on the language of 1:1. At every step of the way, God in sovereign freedom makes his moves. It is natural to assume that the utterly subordinate realities the text refers to in 1:2-3, the darkness, the deep, and chaotic stuff, were themselves created by God. Isaiah 45:6-7 affirms as much with respect to darkness:

אֲנִי יְהוָה וְאֵין עוֹד
יוֹצֵר אוֹר וּבוֹרֵא חֹשֶׁךְ
עֹשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם וּבוֹרֵא רָע
אֲנִי יְהוָה עֹשֶׂה כָל־אֵלֶּה׃

I am יהוה, there is no other;
the faber of light, the creator of darkness,
the maker of weal, the creator of woe:
I, יהוה, am the maker of all of these.

Are we to assume that “the maker of all of these” made darkness from pre-existent materials? That would be an unfounded assumption. Later theological reflection led to an insistence on creatio ex nihilo for all things, darkness, the waters of the deep, and whatever stuff may have been used to fashion earth included. This is in tune with Gen 1 even if Gen 1 does not go there.

If the desire of your heart is to examine the evidence afresh on the basis of currently available resources, with the expectation that others have come to similar conclusions based on the resources available to them, you will frame your findings as far as is possible in continuity with previous interpretation. This is what I have done in this post.

A final note. I eagerly look forward to the appearance of Ellen Van Wolde’s forthcoming monograph through Eisenbrauns (details here; James Spinti informs me that the proofs will be available for perusal at SBL New Orleans). I have reservations about the way she frames her findings, but not about the quality of her scholarship, which is top-notch.

 

For another response to Van Wolde's reported findings, see Chris Heard here.

Comments

[Christopher Heard]

Thank you for this post, John. I always appreciate your contributions to interesting conversations like this. I have shared my own initial reaction here.

[JohnFH]

As often, Chris, we find ourselves on the same page.

[Dr. Dale Beckett]

I went to a moral philosophy workshop once, where one of the speakers said the phrase "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God" had been mistranslated from the Hebrew. It should really read "In the beginning was Relationship and Relationship was with God and Relationship was God." This to me makes perfect sense. I should like your views on this.

[JohnFH]

Dr. Beckett,

That would be from the Greek, since you are quoting from the Gospel of John. The Greek word in question is "logos," a word with great semantic depth which, in context, certainly requires a relationship. The Logos is a kind of go-between (read all of John 1:1-14).

But it would be reductive to limit the sense of "logos" to a relationship. That is merely an aspect of what the word of God is.

[Siward]

Thanks for the post.
Makes sense to me that the word create is a plausible translation.
I always have red this for myself as that God responded to the darkness & chaos by creating light. Can it be that the hebrew text suggest that God disliked the darkness and chaos and therefore created light and order, land and everything that lives upon it? Who are concluded the be tov.
I see the word create/bara refering to expressing of feelings within the Almighty in a concrete way, creating earth and its inhabitants.

[JohnFH]

Siward,

It's true that God expresses a judgment, moral and aesthetic at the same time perhaps, in declaring the light "good," something God does not say about the darkness, the earth in a disorganized state, or the deep before it is properly integrated into a larger scheme of things.

[HLS]

Perhaps the word בְּרֵאשִׁית means "with" REISHIS, referring to the 5 letters which follow the letter BEIS ("Reish", "Aleph", "Shin", "Yud", "Thof") did אֱלֹהִים make what follows. Notice how the words which follow are comprised largely of these 5 five letters:
בָּרָא
אֵת
הַשָּׁמַיִם
Note the root of Shomayim are the letters "Shin" and "Yud". The "Mem" is the "expansion" or plurification of the root word comprise by the two letters Yud and Shin

בָּרָא אֵת וְאֵת

Same with Ha'aretz-- Root letters are "Aleph" and "Reish"

HLS

[JohnFH]

HLS,

I would just point out that games with letters in the Talmud co-occur with less playful and more analytic modes of interpretation.

I'm not interested in changing your mind, but I will reveal my own. I side with Maimonides and his anti-magical, anti-superstitious stance. I prefer less esoteric modes of analysis of the text.

[HLS]

Thank you. On another sentence- We have the physical science observation that darkness is the absence of light, i.e., there is a continuum of total light to zero light. Darkness does not "exist", so to speak, in its own right. Hence the bible describes the creation of "light" but not that of "darkness".

[Dave Jewell]

My immediate reaction was that if the verb 'bara' was intended to communicate "spatially separate" (as Prof van Wolde suggests) then why didn't the writer use the verb badal? You can see badal being used in Gen 1:6, 1:14, 1:18 whenever "divide" appears in the KJV.

Sorry Prof, but I'm not the least bit convinced.
Dave

[JohnFH]

I do not of course question the validity of the physical science explanation of light and darkness, but would note that biblical passages which speak of creation do not assume that explanation.

Note the Isa 45 passage already cited, in which darkness *is* created. The affirmation is part of a larger confession of "ethical monotheism" in which both good and evil are ascribed to God. In that context, it makes sense to speak of the creation of darkness by the same God who made light.

[michael adare]

On the subject of the Greek word logos,logos translates to "word",The word of God as in God spoke,in Greek logos is Gods word.Logos is Gods logic,Hes word.

[Martzian]

Thank you!

[Hebrew Scholar]

As you correctly point out, generations of Bible scholars of all faiths and angles (Jewish, Christian, etc.), including Jews whose first language was Hebrew and Aramaic, have always understood the verb as "create" (out of nothing). For Ellen Van Wolde to claim something else, is to reject the last 5000 years of Hebrew experts, and Aramaic experts for the Targums and Peshitta. Personally, I will reject this new view, and wholeheartedly agree with the traditional view.

[non-believer]

Dear scholars, I am as humbled by your profound knowledge and deep thinking as amazed by your desperate belief in this amazing storybook called the bible. There is no such thing as an expert on the past as any explanation will be sculpted towards a present belief or value system.
I recommend to read "The Halo effect" by Philip Rosenzweig, just to breath some other air.
Wishing you well.

[JohnFH]

Non-believer,

I'm not sure about your beliefs, but mine are more hopeful than desperate. May God's providence continue to uphold you.

[ACM]

As I understand it, Prof. van Wolde's book is not yet out, and the news reports that I have seen do not give the details of her argument. How can someone "respond" to her without knowing what she will say in her book?

[JohnFH]

Hi ACM,

I responded to the professor's public statements made to the press, readily available in both Dutch and English. The statements are detailed enough to allow for carefully qualified criticism, which I have offered here.

[rbryant]

Has Professor Ellen van Wolde Professor of Old Testament Exegesis and Hebrew at the Tilburg University resorted to prerelease sensationalism to promote a book, and a thesis?
I'm not buying either. Jesus never published anything, yet His spoken words written in thousands of languages are of more value than anything money can buy.
If you want to look at a revolutionary interpretation of Gen 1.1/John 1.1
Vernon Jenkins has a free website and a challenge
"Clearly, Genesis 1:1+ and its many numero-geometrical associations represent a miracle of non-biological intelligent design - for who is there to offer a reasonable natural explanation for the existence of this concise and strategically-placed structure - together with its advertisement in the characteristics of a number of common artefacts?

Thus, by reason alone, we are led to a knowledge of God and an appreciation of His abilities; led to understand that the Judeo-Christian Scriptures really do represent His word to man; and led to know the supernatural to be fact and, under God's hand, capable of influencing lives and events in this world.
2009-05-05
http://www.whatabeginning.com/ASPECTS/ASPECTS_1.html

[JohnFH]

Dear Rbryant,

That's just it. I'm not interested in a revolutionary take on Gen 1:1 or any other biblical text. I'm interested in the most reasonable take, whether revolutionary, traditional, or something in between.

The whole idea that one can be led to God by reason alone is, furthermore, counter-intuitive in my eyes. Belief in God in both the Jewish and Christian faiths is a global hypothesis, inclusive of counterfactual claims subject to eschatological verification or not.

The numbers of which you speak are in the eyes of the beholder, a pure artifact of analysis. A number of people over the centuries have tried to discover numerical patterns in the biblical text that are supposed to distinguish it from all other texts and prove its divinity. All of these have fallen flat. Those of us who spend much of our lives trying to understand the Bible look for things that make it *like* all other texts, not just *unlike* all other texts. The idea is that revelation is found in simple earthen vessels. Not the dazzling numerological garb of which you speak.

[Kendrick]

Thank you very much for the article, and for all of the responses above. Got a link to this article earlier today, and sometimes wonder if people try to come up with these "revolutionary" views just to get published. Thank you for upholding the traditional view.

[Oleg]

This discovery was made as early as 1993 in his book "What is motion" which was published in Russian. Enlarged English edition of the book "What is motion" can be downloaded here http://quantaofmotion.com

Voluminous bibliography related to the Bible version of the Universe creation, including critical one, is known. Theology states that the Hebrew word “bara” meaning “to create from nothing”, in contrast to the other word, “assa”, which means creation from any material substance, is used in the expression “created”. Creation of the world from nothing assumes the action of the Divine Providence, which does not need any additional improvised means. This is the main point of God’s sovereign power and His all-essence.
It is difficult to find in the Books of the Bible more tasty morsel than the creation of the world by Moses, which serves for those who, at any time and being adepts of any philosophical school, try to overwhelm theological doctrines “by stock order”. A critical mind finds the most vulnerable side of the Moses narration in these acts of creation of “everything from nothing”. A weak point of the Bible version results from the unavailability of a clear motivation of definitions: What is everything? And what is nothing? Convincingness of the Old Testament scenario of the creation of the world depends exclusively on our ability to find answers to these sacramental questions. To reconcile scientific idea with the religious standpoint concerning the creation of the world the theology needs to know to illustrate physical mechanism of substance beginning from nothing – according the Hebrew word “bara” interpretation.