Hebrew Question on translation of Genesis

[ComradeMan]

Here's a few question I'd like some consensus on from Hebrew speakers...

בְּרֵאשִׁית


although this is translated as "In the beginning" I have read that it should actually be translated as "In a beginning". This obviously puts a different spin on Genesis 1, literally from the beginning- no pun intended.

The next little problem follows...


And the earth was הָיְתָ֥ה without form, and void



Again I have read this הָיְתָ֥ה should be translated as "became" or even "had become" a desert/desolation- the problem being that ancient Hebrew did not seem to distinguish between the two.


Any insights appreciated.

[eyeheartlenin]

Dear Cde. Man: Let me answer the second question first: As it happens, the first meaning of hayah is listed as "become, take place." The second meaning is "happen," and the third meaning is "be, become," but it seems pretty clear that at the beginning of Genesis, "was" is the appropriate translation.

Regarding the first question, the vocalization of the first letter (i.e., the vowel sign underneath that letter) would suggest that, yes, the expression means "in a beginning," but it is clear from the content of Genesis 1:1, that the absolute beginning is referred to: b'resheet bara elohim, "In the beginning, God created" et ha-shamayim v'et ha-arets, "the heavens and the earth."

The Jewish Publication Society Tanakh ([English translation of] the Old Testament), 1985, as well as the Revised Standard Version (RSV), 1952, and the New RSV, 1989, all carry essentially that translation.

Hope this helps.

[Coach Trotsky]

Isn't elohim plural?

LOL @ fundies, your Bible contains the remnant marks of the pre-monotheist Hebrews! Bwahahahaha!

By the way, why does Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 describe two different creation stories? Which is it? Doh!

Now how about the situation after Elohim (literally plural) catches the mischievious and suddenly modest duo after they have nibbled on his fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Genesis 3:22 says "And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.'"
Okay, who the heck is "God" talking to in this verse? It ain't the serpent, and it ain't Adam and Eve. It only makes sense if you remember that Elohim is plural. In other words, God is speaking to a pantheon of deities of which He is only a part. That was what the ancient Hebrews believed, but you won't hear this shit brought up in Sunday School.

Have a look and judge for yourself:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0103.htm#14

[eyeheartlenin]

To respond to Coach T: I saw the post from Cde Man and attempted to clarify the grammar of the words he was asking about. Knowing some of the grammar of biblical Hebrew does not make anyone a "fundie," any more than knowing Sanskrit makes one a Hindu. I am not a fundamentalist, and it is objectionable to be called that.

Nor is it breaking news that the first two chapters of Genesis contain two different creation stories. So what? The Bible is very ancient literature, with lots of stories and a number of different accounts of the same event. Is that really something that keeps atheists awake at night?

As for elohim, the typical explanation is that it is a "plural of majesty." When the Pope says "We," it does not follow that there are two Popes speaking.

There are lots of possibilities for understanding the biblical text beyond fundamentalism or atheism. And there is nothing anti-intellectual in a serious engagement with the text of the Bible.

[ComradeMan]

Isn't elohim plural?

LOL @ fundies, your Bible contains the remnant marks of the pre-monotheist Hebrews! Bwahahahaha!

By the way, why does Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 describe two different creation stories? Which is it? Doh!

Now how about the situation after Elohim (literally plural) catches the mischievious and suddenly modest duo after they have nibbled on his fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Genesis 3:22 says "And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.'"
Okay, who the heck is "God" talking to in this verse? It ain't the serpent, and it ain't Adam and Eve. It only makes sense if you remember that Elohim is plural. In other words, God is speaking to a pantheon of deities of which He is only a part. That was what the ancient Hebrews believed, but you won't hear this shit brought up in Sunday School.

Have a look and judge for yourself:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0103.htm#14


Never heard of angels?

Elohim could also be translated as "powers" and seeing as you are so keen on this you may note that the word "adam" could basically refer to humankind as opposed to one man.

Try reading the Hebrew first. ;)

[Nehru]

Or the trinity - three persons but one godhead.

[ComradeMan]

Or the trinity - three persons but one godhead.

I've heard that argument put forward too. Obviously in Jewish circles it is not usually accepted but it is interesting all the same, and of course from a Christian perspective valid.

[RGacky3]

Some people say that He is talking to Michael the archangel, others say it is an angel.

The Trinity thing does'nt work, as trinity was basically invented in the 3rd century CE.

Its probably the same person he's talking to in 1:26, many christians point to it as Michael, who later became christ.

[ComradeMan]

Some people say that He is talking to Michael the archangel, others say it is an angel.

The Trinity thing does'nt work, as trinity was basically invented in the 3rd century CE.

Its probably the same person he's talking to in 1:26, many christians point to it as Michael, who later became christ.

Yes and no.... ideas of a trinity can be found as early as St Ignatius Of Antioch who was martyred c110 AD. As for Michael being Christ, I'm not sure about that one- is it not a Protestant idea that was later adopted by Jehovah's Witnesses?

Well all angels' names finish with "-el" and the god of the Old Testament is also referred to as "El"- this is a Semitic word and is found in other Semitic cultures and is I think also connected to the word "Allah" in Arabic. Anyway, the plural form "elohim" could be referring to the Heavenly host as such.

There is one thing that I noticed in that the early Genesis account of creation has some similiarities to the Ptah-Atum creation myth of Ancient Egypt- more specifically the Memphis tradition.

Ptah is a kind or androgenous rimordial Egyptian deity who is associated with pottery and moulds from clay, the superficial similarity between Atum and "Adam" is also striking. The interpretation of the "rib" used to create Eve as a baculum (penis bone absent in humans but present in other primates) is also interesting given Egyptian creation myths.

[RGacky3]

Well all angels' names finish with "-el" and the god of the Old Testament is also referred to as "El"- this is a Semitic word and is found in other Semitic cultures and is I think also connected to the word "Allah" in Arabic. Anyway, the plural form "elohim" could be referring to the Heavenly host as such.


El is just a word for god, which does'nt refer exclusively to Yahweh, hell, Moses was called a god, but it makes sense that angels were called gods as well. It can be used to refer to someone with a lot of power.

It makese sense that the accounts are similar, those 2 cultures had a lot of interaction.

[ComradeMan]

El is just a word for god, which does'nt refer exclusively to Yahweh, hell, Moses was called a god, but it makes sense that angels were called gods as well. It can be used to refer to someone with a lot of power.

It makese sense that the accounts are similar, those 2 cultures had a lot of interaction.

Yeah, interestingly though the Tanakh often uses the form "elohim" in the plural. Given that there are various attributes and names of God used it could explain the use of the plural.

The whole problem is that it's not clear what the ancient writers conceived of when they used the word "god" in the general sense.

[Coach Trotsky]

To respond to Coach T: I saw the post from Cde Man and attempted to clarify the grammar of the words he was asking about. Knowing some of the grammar of biblical Hebrew does not make anyone a "fundie," any more than knowing Sanskrit makes one a Hindu. I am not a fundamentalist, and it is objectionable to be called that.

Nor is it breaking news that the first two chapters of Genesis contain two different creation stories. So what? The Bible is very ancient literature, with lots of stories and a number of different accounts of the same event. Is that really something that keeps atheists awake at night?

As for elohim, the typical explanation is that it is a "plural of majesty." When the Pope says "We," it does not follow that there are two Popes speaking.

There are lots of possibilities for understanding the biblical text beyond fundamentalism or atheism. And there is nothing anti-intellectual in a serious engagement with the text of the Bible.

Wasn't calling YOU or Comrade Man a fundie. But I live in America, near shitloads of fundie would-be witch burners, and frankly I LOVE taking their own holy book and turning it into a weapon against them.
You will hardly ever find an American fundie who has even heard about the fact that early Hebrews were polytheistic. They think the Bible is absolutely consistent and without even a single error. Well, when they get pushy, I love to push back and make them wish they showed up on the devil's doorstep instead.

[ComradeMan]

Wasn't calling YOU or Comrade Man a fundie. But I live in America, near shitloads of fundie would-be witch burners, and frankly I LOVE taking their own holy book and turning it into a weapon against them.
You will hardly ever find an American fundie who has even heard about the fact that early Hebrews were polytheistic. They think the Bible is absolutely consistent and without even a single error. Well, when they get pushy, I love to push back and make them wish they showed up on the devil's doorstep instead.

Fair enough, it did sound like you were being antagonistic though and given the usual climate here at RevLeft perhaps our responses become a little pavlovian at times. Apologies all round.

The biggest enemies of faith are religious fundamentalists.

I have had many debates with them and been labelled a heretic, told I'll burn in hell, been labelled a Jewish apologist by Christians, a Christian apologist by Jews, an infidel and also a spreader of venom (that was a tough one!) and all of the usual stuff yet all I did was argue from scripture and logic. ;) It always surprises me how ignorant and bigotted they can be given that they are such zealots of their own faith.

Beware of those who read the Bible as prose! ;)

[hatzel]

Before we get down to business...the plurality we're discussing isn't so different from the plurality of the French 'vous' or even the English 'you,' rather than 'thou.' Think 'the royal we' or whatever you want to call it, as eyeheartlenin said. It's often used with a grammatically singular verb, and when used with a plural verb, it generally implies, as we've suggested, the council of angels. You know, the Satan and stuff, the various agents of G-d...

The particular word is, however, understand to be used to refer to G-d as manifest through nature, or, G-d through the Nartik, kind of...a boundary thing...like if the universe is inside a balloon, and G-d is a torch outside the balloon, Elokim would be the light that appears to shine from the membrane of the balloon, which is already somewhat 'veiled,' hence it's manifest through nature. Or something...let's not try to explain that one...

I feel that this is a perfect opportunity for me to bring out my standard complaint about the translation of the opening verse: the form 'bara,' of the stem 'to create,' doesn't fit grammatically with the third person past that would be suggested by "in the beginning, G-d created the heaven(s) and the Earth." In Jewish circles, it's generally accepted to mean "in the beginning of God's creating the heaven(s) and the Earth," and all Jewish translations I've seen adhere to this basic formula...

That said, you're right in pointing out that b'reishit (or however you want to spell it) lacks any definite article. That would technically demand 'bareishit,' though the difference is only in the nikkud points. The actual letters would remain the same in both cases. Not entirely certain why it's not like that...in beginning...to start with :lol:

As for the next bit...you're right again, Hebrew is notoriously bad at a) having different tenses for different things; and b) distinguishing between words. So it could, indeed, be 'became.' "In the beginning of G-d's creating the heaven(s) and the Earth, and the Earth was void and formless"...or became...the suggestion of becoming might be more fitting, actually. With the beginning of the creation, the Earth became void and formless, rather than it already being void and formless. I don't think there's any suggestion that there was a void and formless Earth before the beginning of the creation, though...if that's a suggestion of 'was' rather than 'became'...

[ComradeMan]

...

So we could justifiably arrive at "In (a) beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth?" which might seem inconsequential until we compare it to the "standard" "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?

[eyeheartlenin]

... I feel that this is a perfect opportunity for me to bring out my standard complaint about the translation of the opening verse: the form 'bara,' of the stem 'to create,' doesn't fit grammatically with the third person past that would be suggested by "in the beginning, G-d created the heaven(s) and the Earth." In Jewish circles, it's generally accepted to mean "in the beginning of God's creating the heaven(s) and the Earth," and all Jewish translations I've seen adhere to this basic formula...

I enjoyed reading cde La Sombra's post, but when I consult a Hebrew-English lexicon, it indicates that the form bara ("he created") is, in fact, a regular lamed-aleph third person masculine singular verb, with a kamats under the resh, so it is not clear to me how bara "doesn't fit grammatically."

[Source, Benjamin Davidson, The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, 1970, p. 48]

It is true, however, that the JPS Tanakh gives the translation cde La Sombra favors, in the text of Genesis, while putting the conventional translation, the one that begins, "In the beginning, G-d ..." etc., in a footnote, so there may be something in the Hebrew original I am missing.

[Zostrianos]

Elohim was carried over from Canaanite religion, where it denotes the heavenly council of the Gods (Elonim in Phoenician, and Ilanyuma in Ugaritic. See Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, by FM Cross). Israel originally was polytheistic, but when the tribal cult of YHWH merged with the native levantine cults, the other Gods were abolished. Elohim survived but it is treated as a singular noun though grammatically plural. Later Jewish and Christian exegetes invented alternate explanations (like angels, or majesty), but in reality it refers to the council of the Gods.

[RedGrunt]

Elohim was carried over from Canaanite religion, where it denotes the heavenly council of the Gods (Elonim in Phoenician, and Ilanyuma in Ugaritic. See Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, by FM Cross). Israel originally was polytheistic, but when the tribal cult of YHWH merged with the native levantine cults, the other Gods were abolished. Elohim survived but it is treated as a singular noun though grammatically plural. Later Jewish and Christian exegetes invented alternate explanations (like angels, or majesty), but in reality it refers to the council of the Gods.

There is also the theory that they were henotheistic, ie; polytheistic but with a focus on one national/tribal god of their own. These are another explanation for the acceptance of other gods existing. "Have no other gods before Me".

Originally there was emphasis of God as an Israelite deity but later becomes more and more universal.

[freepalestine]

Elohim was carried over from Canaanite religion, where it denotes the heavenly council of the Gods (Elonim in Phoenician, and Ilanyuma in Ugaritic. See Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, by FM Cross). Israel originally was polytheistic, but when the tribal cult of YHWH merged with the native levantine cults, the other Gods were abolished. Elohim survived but it is treated as a singular noun though grammatically plural. Later Jewish and Christian exegetes invented alternate explanations (like angels, or majesty), but in reality it refers to the council of the Gods.http://www.arabworldbooks.com/authors/bassem_raad.htm

this is a new book that is related to what is said there..

by Basem L. Ra’ad
باسم رعد
Hidden Histories: Palestine and the Eastern Mediterranean

[Zostrianos]

There is also the theory that they were henotheistic, ie; polytheistic but with a focus on one national/tribal god of their own. These are another explanation for the acceptance of other gods existing. "Have no other gods before Me".
Originally there was emphasis of God as an Israelite deity but later becomes more and more universal.

There is substantial evidence that up until the 6th century BC there was a sizeable portion of Hebrews who also worshipped other deities besides YHWH:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Judaism

Both the archaeological evidence and the Biblical texts document tensions between groups comfortable with the worship of Yahweh alongside local deities such as Asherah and Baal and those insistent on worship of Yahweh alone during the monarchal period.[2][3] During the 8th century BCE, worship of Yahweh in Israel stood in competition with many other cults, described by the Yahwist faction collectively as Baals. The oldest books of the Hebrew Bible, written in the 8th century BCE, reflect this competition, as in the books of Hosea and Nahum, whose authors lament the "apostasy" of the people of Israel, threatening them with the wrath of God if they do not give up their polytheistic cults. The monotheist faction seems to have gained considerable influence during the 8th century BCE, and by the 7th century BCE, based on the testimony of the Deuteronomistic source, monotheistic worship of Yahweh seems to have become official during the 7th century BCE, reflected in the removal of the image of Asherah from the temple in Jerusalem under Hezekiah (r. 715-686 BCE) so that monotheistic worship of the God of Israel can be argued to have originated during his rule.[4] Hezekiah's successor Manasseh reversed some of these reforms, restoring polytheistic worship, and according to 2 Kings 21:16 even persecuting the monotheist faction. Josiah (r. 641-609 BCE) again turned to monolatry. The Book of Deuteronomy as well as the other books ascribed to the Deuteronomist were written during Josiah's rule. The final two decades of the monarchic period, leading up to the Babylonian sack of Jerusalem in 597 BCE were thus marked by official monolatry of the God of Israel. This had important consequences in the worship of Yahweh as it was practiced in the Babylonian captivity and ultimately for the theology of Second Temple Judaism.

And indeed, the rigorous monotheism preached in the Bible probably has its origins in tribal culture where each tribe had its own God. Eventually, especially with Christianity, this became universal

[ComradeMan]

And indeed, the rigorous monotheism preached in the Bible probably has its origins in tribal culture where each tribe had its own God. Eventually, especially with Christianity, this became universal

Try again.

If you want to know the roots of Judaism look to the land of the Pharaohs.....