|
|
Preface Introduction Chapters Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6 Appendices Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Appendix IV Appendix V Appendix VI Appendix VII Appendix VIII Appendix IX Appendix X Appendix XI Appendix XII Appendix XIII Appendix XIV Appendix XV Appendix XVI Appendix XVII Appendix XVIII Appendix XIX Appendix XX Appendix XXI Indexes References Names Biblical References General Bibliography |
INTRODUCTION.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void and darkness was on the face of the deep."
"And the earth was without form..." or "But the earth
had become a
ruin...". Which is the more correct translation? It could make a tremendous difference. The first two verses of Genesis chapter one have
been trans- lated in essentially the same way in virtually every English Version from that authorized in 1611 by James I (no mean
Hebrew scholar himself!) to those 'modern idiom' versions which seem
to have been appearing with ever increasing frequency in recent
years. One might therefore reasonably suppose that the
rendering from the Heb- rew into English of this particular passage is a
perfectly straight- forward matter without any ambiguity whatever. Not
a few modern writers would like us to think so. Unfortunately, this is not really the case. Some difference of opinion about the precise meaning of the original
has existed for centuries. A substantial number of Hebrew scholars have held that the wording of verse 2 may be translated in a way
which gives the reader a fundamentally different impression as to
its meaning. And even the relationship between verse 1 and verse 2
is a matter of pg
1 of 9 continuing debate because this relationship hinges
very largely upon how verse 2 is translated. Although this disagreement has existed for
a very long time, I cannot find that anyone has really set out to
review the whole issue with the thoroughness it deserves. Analysis of
verse 2 shows that both the words themselves, as well as the order in
which they are set forth (a matter of considerable importance in
Hebrew), have been chosen with particular care; and each qualifying
term is illuminated elsewhere in Scripture in a way which seems to
show that this verse, far from being a mere continuation of what
precedes it, may be intended to describe a somewhat later period of
the earth's history which subsequent revelation takes as an important
reference point. It is far more than merely a poetically worded
picture of a world in the making. Indeed, no Hebrew manuscript that I am
aware of ever presents this portion of Genesis in that literary
form which is re- served for poetry throughout the rest of the Old
Testament. This may be drama, but it is written as prose, not
poetry. Were it merely a poetic statement, it need not be taken
too seriously as a precise description of the early history of our
earth, but considered as prose its correct interpretation is a matter of
much greater importance. The importance of establishing its intended
meaning does not stem from the fact that if it is interpreted in one
particular way it can then be used to resolve certain apparent conflicts
between the Mosaic cosmogony and modern geological theory. Its importance stems from the fact that it is a foundation statement;
and the foundation statements of any belief system are the more
critical as they lie nearer the base of its structure. An error at the end
of a long line of reasoning may be very undesirable but it is
much less dangerous than an error at the beginning. And in the first three chapters of Genesis we have the basic facts upon which are
erected the whole theological superstructure of the Christian faith.
Uncertainty here, or misinterpretation, is likely to have
repercussions throughout the whole of the rest of the system of belief. Essentially, there are two possible
interpretations of Gen. 1.2. Either it is a chaos which marks the first stage
of God's creative activity, or it is a chaos which resulted from
some catastrophic event marring what had formerly been an orderly
and beautiful world. Not infrequently it is argued that it cannot be a
picture of a "dest- royed" earth because there is no geological
evidence for such an event on a global scale. But the fundamental question at
issue here is not the absence or otherwise of geological evidence for such an event. The
real question is, "What does the text really mean?" For it is a well recognized fact that when some particular
idea is unpopular and runs counter to the current orthodoxy of the
times, it will be widely held that it cannot be true because of lack
of evidence in its favour. But when current opinion veers around for
some quite un- forseen reason until the originally unfavourable
idea comes to be looked upon with less disfavour, it suddenly turns
out, unexpectedly, that there is evidence to support it,
evidence that is obviously in its favour! This happened with the
theory of Continental Drift, for example, which after being popularized by Wegener,
Du Toit, Taylor, and others, fell into strong disfavour because the
mechanism was lacking. But now it has come right back and
appears as a very useful theory indeed. We should not be too anxious if the
text as it stands turns out to mean something which conflicts with
present geological orthodoxy.
The same thing may happen here. To repeat, therefore, the question at issue in
this study is not "What is the geological evidence?" but
"What does the passage really mean?" In short, if we are once sure what
some particular passage is saying, we should not allow science to
determine for us - and I speak as a scientist - what we may believe in
Scripture; nor are we to allow a clear statement of Scripture to
determine what the scientist may observe in his laboratory. Demonstrable fact
in the one cannot ultimately conflict with demonstrable fact in the
other, though in- terpretations often do. Where a conflict of
evidence seem s to exist, we must search for some means of reconciliation:
failing this, we need not abandon either piece of evidence if we
are reasonably sure of both, but only wait for further light.
Contradictory things some- times equally turn out to be true, and in the past
it has not infrequently happened that further light has shown such
contradiction to be more apparent than real. Invariably Scripture has been
vindicated where it often seemed most obviously in error. The light
of Archaeology has consistently demonstrated this. So the basic issue to be resolved here, as I see
it, is the precise intention of this verse: and the most likely way
to succeed in this enquiry is not to be guided by a branch of science
(Geology) that is still comparatively young and far from precise,
but by examining the rules which have governed the writing of Hebrew
and by studying carefully the statements of Scripture elsewhere
whenever they shed light.
Other linguistic evidence (as, for example, from cognate languages) may be used to advantage to provide
background inform- ation, though such evidence is seldom conclusive.
In any case, the best commentary on Scripture is Scripture itself,
and it is upon Scripture that we have to depend ultimately for
light on Hebrew usage. It seems to me of secondary importance to
determine to what extent the meaning we derive from the passage can be
squared with current geological doctrine, even though it is reasonable
enough to attempt a reconciliation where possible. But such
reconciliation must always be held with reserve, for the current scientific view
with which harmony might thus be achieved may itself fail to
survive an increase in our knowledge of the earth's past history. Modern theories of cosmogony and of earth history are very much in a
state of flux and the certainties of yesterday (a steady-state
universe, for example) are no longer the certainties of today. This, in a nutshell, is my feeling about the means whereby to determine the
correct translation of Gen.1.2. But I also think that the issue needs resolving,
if at all possible, because it has increasingly become a fertile
source of provocation for all sorts of hard feelings and pontifical
pronouncements on the part of both its adherents and its opponents. Some
will surely appear in this book! The subject has become emotionally
charged and, as a consequence, it is difficult to evaluate it
without becoming involved in the crossfire. There is no middle ground any
longer. One must apparently accept all the accretions and assigned
implications if one expresses any opinion that favours either
view. It is no longer possible, or at any rate it has become
increasingly difficult, to isolate the fundamental issue of the precise meaning of
the Hebrew original from all the superstructures that have been built
upon particular interpretations of it. And the quite erroneous
opinion that the view adopted in this volume originated only with the
challenge of modern Geology dies very hard indeed. The term, "Gap Theory", has become an
epithet of dissaprobation in many quarters. It is widely supposed that only pinheads and nitwits give any serious thought to the matter any
more. We are assured that the interpretation has not an ounce
of weight in its favour from the linguistic point of view.... It is linguistic nonsense "as every Hebrew scholar knows", or so says the
voice of one authority. Or to quote the views of a more recent author, an
organic chemist, who dismisses a question that has engaged some of
the best Hebrew scholars with complete assurance by stating
categorically that the thesis is "unscriptural, unreasonable, and
unscientific". So one might wonder if it is worth a moment's notice. But history shows that as soon as "all
authorities are agreed", this is when there is greatest need for caution. Majority
opinion is important.... but never decisive. We accept majority rule in government not because the
majority is most likely to be right but because if they are wrong they are not
likely to be so dangerously wrong as the minority would be. It is a safety device - not a guarantee of infallibility. Unfortunately, human beings accept authority
rather easily. It saves having to think for oneself.... We find it
more convenient to quote an authority than to become one: and such is
human nature that if we quote authorities with sufficient force or
frequency, we become an authority merely by the doing of it! As George
Eliot said, it is possible for a man to appear so learned by his quotes
that the appear- ance becomes a proof of what he believes.
Quotation marks provide a reinforcement for an observation which lessens
(or seems to lessen) the more important requirement that it be the
truth. So authoritar- ianism spawns itself. Tremendous vocal support can be given through the medium of the printed word to
statements made by genuine authorities who have been misinterpreted or
misrepresented or mis- understood by lesser authorities, or to statements
which the original authors have themselves since abandoned. The printed word is powerful in its persuasiveness! Things get
repeated so frequently in the literature that they be gin to achieve the
status of unchallengeable and inspired truths. The cliche that the Hebrew word means "to create out of nothing" and
that it is used only of divine activity, is a case in point. Both parts of the
statement are demon- strably false. As to the first, we know that
Scripture says of Adam that he was created out of the dust of the ground,
not ex nihilo. And as to the second, a Young's Concordance will soon
show the English reader that the supposed rule is not true in this
regard either. The fact is that the Hebrew word may indeed mean creation
ex nihilo.... and probably does in Gen. 1.1. But it is not
something that inheres in the word itself. And the word is only limited
to divine activity in one particular verbal form (the Kal), while in its
other forms it is used of human activity. To say that in these
'other' cases it does not mean "to create" is not the issue. The statement, so often made without qualification, is that the verb is never
used except of divine activity.
And this is simply not true. Now, in order to avoid misunderstanding, I must
repeat something which I said earlier, namely, that the question of
whether Genesis, Chapter one, can be squared with modern geological
theory is of secondary importance. I do not for one moment say it is quite un-important. It is important. But the more important thing is, undoubtedly, to determine what Genesis says. Other issues are secondary. My own conclusions as to the meaning of
Gen. 1.2 does
not accord with that reflected in almost every version published in
the last fifty or sixty years. This might seem sufficient reason for discounting it. But it is well to keep the door of
inquiry open anyhow, and this is really all that one can hope to
achieve by such a study as this. And
I think it can be demonstrated that in some respects at least, current generally accepted views are not
altogether correct. This book is not written therefore for anyone who,
for example. has already decided that the correct and only
reasonable rendering of sequence has no interest in any further light
which may be available on the subject. It is written for those who still
have an open mind and who do not expect in such questions as these
to achieve absolute certainty where we are dealing with an ancient
language whose grammar and syntax we still do not understand
completely. It is written for those who would like to know something
of what is to be said on both sides. There is no question that
virtually all the usual authorities quoted at the present time, if they
are not against my rendering, at least have not seen fit to recommend
it as a preferred alternative, though some certainly admit it. But
this need not deter one, because these same authorities contradict
them selves in certain critical ways. Keil refuses to recognize the
possibility of "became" for "was" in Gen. 1.2 but suggests it
for "was" in Gen. 3.20 where the same word occurs in precisely the same form. And
in some cases they later changed their minds on the matter, as
Delitzsch seems to have done, and as Dillman expressly did, for
example. And other authorities like S. R. Driver, unhesitatingly
acknowledged the schol- arship of contemporaries such as Pusey who held
precisely the views |
