Claude Mariottini passes on the news that:
Professor Ellen Van Wolde, an Old Testament scholar and member of the Royal Academy of Sciences, said that Genesis 1:1 has been translated incorrectly and that a correct translation of the first verse of Genesis negates the view that God is the creator of heavens and earth.
The report he cites is similar enough to one in the Telegraph to suggest a press release lies behind both. That is, no-one yet, except Van Wolde, thinks either that she has proved her case, or that it is in any way earth-shattering.
The odd thing is the way the argument (as given in the Telegraph) jumps from a technical linguistic argument:
She said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb “bara”, which is used in the first sentence of the book of Genesis, does not mean “to create” but to “spatially separate”. The first sentence should now read “in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth”
and moves to a very odd conclusion:
A spokesman for the Radboud University said: “The new interpretation is a complete shake up of the story of the Creation as we know it.” Prof Van Wolde added: “The traditional view of God the Creator is untenable now.”
I have a couple of observations. First, irrespective of arguments over the meaning of “bara”, the question of whether the opening Genesis account describes a creation ex nihilo or the organisation of some already present chaotic stuff – that question has been around for a long time. Second, despite the attention given to the opening chapter of the Bible, this is a long way from being the only place in which ideas of creation are explored. It’s not even (at least in the form we have it now) the earliest place. Third, no doctrine rests only on a single verse, far less a single word. The Christian doctrine of creation is a rather richer and more pervasive theme of Scripture than a mechanistic understanding of a verb in a fairly carefully crafted polemic retelling of an ancient creation myth.
Update: There is a rather good post on the more detailed linguistic question by Chris Heard here.
{ 4 comments }
I would grant that Genesis 1 describes the fashioning of the earth from pre-existent waste and welter, and the appearance of land in pre-existent water. Darkness is also pre-existent, but light, on the contrary, is the first of many things created ex nihilo and by divine fiat.
Later reflection on God as creator led to a generalization of the ex nihilo principle. Rightly so. Gen 1 is concerned with the sequential fashioning of the components of creation and assignment of functions relative to one another. The unit does not imply that darkness, chaotic stuff, and the abyss existed from an absolute beginning with the God who exercises sovereign control over them. The text does not recount an absolute beginning. It recounts how God began and completed the creation of heaven and earth and all that is in them.
On the contrary, it is natural to assume that that utterly subordinate realities were themselves created by God. In short, I see the later theological reflection that led to an insistence on creatio ex nihilo as in tune with Gen 1 even if Gen 1 does not go there.
If you are planning on being at SBL, you can read more about her arguments in the forthcoming Eisenbrauns book:
http://www.eisenbrauns.com/item/WOLREFRAM
This is just a small part of what she is proposing.
James
I agree that the press reports have the flavor of sensationalism. The issue isn’t new, and the answer doesn’t lie in the semantic details of bara. Still, for those who are interested, I have a post here with a little more information about bara.
-Joel
Doug,
You said: “No doctrine rests only on a single verse, far less a single word.”
This is the great truth that people tend to forget when talking about the biblical doctrine of creation. Van Wolde’s study of the word bara’ is not comprehensive, as Chris Heard has shown in his post.
Claude Mariottini
Comments on this entry are closed.