Comments on: On Genesis 1:1

By: Joel H.

Joel H. — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:46:16 +0000

I don’t think so. I think that the translation of the original text can (and should) be created based only on what the text is, not on what we want it to be. In this case, the first step is figuring out what the Hebrew in Genesis 1:1 means. The next step is incorporating the passage into a larger theology.

By: Randy R.

Randy R. — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 03:05:38 +0000

Doesn’t one’s translation also depend upon whether they (or the writer) believes in creation as a single event at a single point in time or as a process over time? Whether they believe God created a void & formlessness from nothing and that is “the beginning” or else God created/formed an earth from the waste and formless “mud and water” that pre-existed the “creation” and it is that “forming or building” that is the “beginning”, which either is or maybe even comes before the 1st day?

By: in the beginning

in the beginning — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:53:41 +0000

[...] possibility that b’reshit might mean more than just the sum of its parts. Read his thoughts here. This entry was posted in uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a [...]

By: Joel H.

Joel H. — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:47:59 +0000

Thanks. Enjoy the book.

By: Gary Simmons

Gary Simmons — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:50:44 +0000

Well, if he does even just a half-decent job as the only one left with access to a wealth of otherwise-forgotten lore, that does increase his prestige regardless of the unfortunate fate of his teachers.

In response to the Ten Commandments post: I’ve decided to buy your book now. I had intended to at some point, but I’m thinking that point would be now. Thanks again for both linguistic and spiritual insight. The Lord bless and keep you, and make his face shine on you.

By: Joel H.

Joel H. — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:59:33 +0000

Don’t worry about it at all.

Every so often I’ll be giving a lecture and someone will take me to task for not kowtowing to Jewish tradition, and I try to explain that — at least for me — the tradition and the science can exist side by side. Most people seem to agree.

As for Rashi, I do wonder how much of his fame comes from the quality of his work and how much from the historical accident that his teachers were slaughtered after he returned home.

By: Gary Simmons

Gary Simmons — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:47:02 +0000

Yeah, I was hesitant to actually post it, since I know you've probably heard it before and not in good fun. If it crossed a line, I apologize. It really sounds like Rashi was extremely dedicated and worthy of respect.

By: Joel H.

Joel H. — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:55:42 +0000

He’s a lot older than you. He’s been teaching Hebrew exegetes for centuries now. Therefore, he’s right. And you’re wrong.

You meant it in jest, but, in fact, this is essentially the traditional Jewish approach (which I sometimes summarize as “the deader you are the smarter you are”). This makes it hard for Jews to produce a translation that is both scientifically accurate and religiously authentic.

By: Gary Simmons

Gary Simmons — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:02:40 +0000

He’s a lot older than you. He’s been teaching Hebrew exegetes for centuries now. Therefore, he’s right. And you’re wrong.

But seriously: good post. With my middling Hebrew skills, this was very helpful. Thank you, Joel!

By: Joel H.

Joel H. — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:00:02 +0000

I do not think that it could go either way. I think that b'reishit is a sentence level adverb here, and that it answers the question "when?" As I've described elsewhere, including in And God Said, I think that the position of the adverb before the verb points in the direction of: "it was in the beginning that God created...." According to Rashi, the sentence explains only what the first step of creation was, not when creation occurred. I think he's wrong ("with all due respect").