WindBelow

So, I was watching the History channel the other day, and they gave mention to a Hebrew to English mis-translation, and I wanted to know if it held any merit.

It said that even the first sentence of the Old Testament can be looked at being wrong. The show said instead of "In the beginning" it should be “In a beginning"...That’s a pretty big difference if you ask me.

lee_merrill

Hi WB,

That is true, this is a possible translation. Yet I don't think this means "the beginning" is wrong. Lots of places have choices in which to translate them, and that doesn't mean the Old Testament is wrong, it only means a given translation is a choice between those possibilities.

Here is the Word Biblical Commentary on this verse:

"1.b. Heb. lacks the def[inite] art[icle] in ["b'reshith"](lit., 'in beginning') but 'in the beginning' is an acceptable translation (Joüon, 137k). Omission of the def[inite] art[icle] is regular in temporal phrases and does not necessarily indicate that ["reshith"] should be taken as constr[uct] (cf. Isa 46:10; Prov 8:23)." (Wenham, G. J. (1998). Vol. 1: Word Biblical Commentary : Genesis 1-15 (electronic ed.). Logos Library System;Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated.)

Regards,
Lee

spin

Salve!
There is a common mistranslation in Gen 1:1, but it doesn't involve "In the beginning". As Lee's commentary says, "Omission of the def[inite] art[icle] is regular in temporal phrases", such as br)$yt, "at the beginning", and b(t, "at the time".

What is interesting is that the commentary goes on to say, "and does not necessarily indicate that ["reshith"] should be taken as constr[uct]", though in most cases we find "beginning" in a construct, ie we are told the beginning of what. The frequent translation, "In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth", doesn't say at the beginning of what. This is why the commentary clarifies with the notion that the "of what" is not necessary.

However, if we note that the first act of creation specified in the text is found in v3, "and god said 'let there be light', andthere was light", we need to be able to relate what comes before that first act to the whole discourse. This can easiest be done by realising that r)$yt is in a construct, ie in the beginning of god creating the heavens and the earth, ie the beginning of the creation process.

In the beginning of god's creating the heavens and the earth, when the earth was without form and empty, when darkness was on the deep and the wind of god was on the waters, god said "Let there be light"...

...and turned the light on for creation to follow.

What is the importance here? The creation was not out of nothing, for there were the waters and the darkness and presumably the land, separated out in v9, was in the waters. The wind which was hovering over the waters had to be somewhere when it was over the waters, so at the beginning of god's creating the heavens and the earth there was matter and dimension.

The notion of an "a" insinuated into Gen 1:1 is an attempt to develop the notion of a punctuated creation, ie between the supposed complete creation in Gen 1:1 and the start of what seems a new creation in Gen 1:3 all sorts of things happened. The text doesn't permit such conjecture.


spin