|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation According to Genesis: One Account or Two? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
According to arachnophilia, the verses of the second account should be read as happening in a sequence, one after the other:
quote: I'm reading through his other posts and his other threads; very informative!Love your enemies! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
My question for you would be why you would insist any particular tense over another when tense is ambiguous. (Favoring one tense is a matter of preference but insisting is something different) It seems to me that choices of tense generate different and viable translations. I don't know how ambiguous tense really is, but I understand that there is no tense/aspectual difference between the verbs that begin vv. 2:6—8 and 2:19, which makes me strongly suspicious of any translation that introduces such a distinction as it does not exist in the original text. When I consider this along with the information on the waw-consecutive (see arachnophilia's post that I quoted in Message 58 and his link to the Wikipedia article), a translation that describes each event as happening after the one before it seems the most likely. When I consider both of these things along with the analysis of the plot that certainly requires Man to be created before the animals and plants, a strict chronological reading is, to a high degree of probability (close to 100%), the only sensible way to read the passage. We can add to this, interestingly, the fact that the authors of the second account used a method of indicating actions previously completed: the verb 'form' at the end of 2:8 is written in the perfect and so properly translated "had formed". If 2:19 was intended by the authors to read "had formed", as in 'previously completed', it could have been easily indicated. Likewise with the verb 'plant' in 2:8. In summary:
Taken together, these points support the KJV (and similar) translation and not the NIV (and similar) translation. Ball's all yours if you still think otherwise. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Isn't this ambiguity or lack of it exactly the detail that we ought to be discussing? And I did discuss it, in three of my points. Here they are again:
Sailhamer designates the NIV translation 'questionable'. I'm not going to defend Sailhammer.
Is that really all that we're going to say on the issue? What I'm going to say on the issue is what I've already said... and what you haven't responded to.
Drag some of the post into the discussion, please so I can at least have some idea of what to address. I quoted the whole thing in this thread; just follow the links. Here's the waw-consecutive: ו And here's arachnophilia's quote of the text from Gen 2:4—25 (which you can find a link to in Message 58):.אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ, בְּהִבָּרְאָם: בְּיוֹם, עֲשׂוֹת יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים--אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם .וְכֹל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה, טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ, וְכָל-עֵשֶׂב הַשָּׂדֶה, טֶרֶם יִצְמָח: כִּי לֹא הִמְטִיר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, עַל-הָאָרֶץ, וְאָדָם אַיִן, לַעֲבֹד אֶת-הָאֲדָמָה . וְאֵד, יַעֲלֶה מִן-הָאָרֶץ, וְהִשְׁקָה, אֶת-כָּל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה .וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם, עָפָר מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו, נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה . וַיִּטַּע יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, גַּן-בְּעֵדֶן--מִקֶּדֶם; וַיָּשֶׂם שָׁם, אֶת-הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יָצָר .וַיַּצְמַח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, כָּל-עֵץ נֶחְמָד לְמַרְאֶה, וְטוֹב לְמַאֲכָל--וְעֵץ הַחַיִּים, בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן, וְעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע .וְנָהָר יֹצֵא מֵעֵדֶן, לְהַשְׁקוֹת אֶת-הַגָּן; וּמִשָּׁם, יִפָּרֵד, וְהָיָה, לְאַרְבָּעָה רָאשִׁים .שֵׁם הָאֶחָד, פִּישׁוֹן--הוּא הַסֹּבֵב, אֵת כָּל-אֶרֶץ הַחֲוִילָה, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁם, הַזָּהָב .וּזְהַב הָאָרֶץ הַהִוא, טוֹב; שָׁם הַבְּדֹלַח, וְאֶבֶן הַשֹּׁהַם .וְשֵׁם-הַנָּהָר הַשֵּׁנִי, גִּיחוֹן--הוּא הַסּוֹבֵב, אֵת כָּל-אֶרֶץ כּוּשׁ .וְשֵׁם הַנָּהָר הַשְּׁלִישִׁי חִדֶּקֶל, הוּא הַהֹלֵךְ קִדְמַת אַשּׁוּר; וְהַנָּהָר הָרְבִיעִי, הוּא פְרָת .וַיִּקַּח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הָאָדָם; וַיַּנִּחֵהוּ בְגַן-עֵדֶן, לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ . וַיְצַו יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, עַל-הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר: מִכֹּל עֵץ-הַגָּן, אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל .וּמֵעֵץ, הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע--לֹא תֹאכַל, מִמֶּנּוּ: כִּי, בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ--מוֹת תָּמוּת .וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, לֹא-טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ; אֶעֱשֶׂה-לּוֹ עֵזֶר, כְּנֶגְדּוֹ .וַיִּצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, כָּל-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כָּל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וַיָּבֵא אֶל-הָאָדָם, לִרְאוֹת מַה-יִּקְרָא-לוֹ; וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָא-לוֹ הָאָדָם נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, הוּא שְׁמוֹ .וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁמוֹת, לְכָל-הַבְּהֵמָה וּלְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּלְכֹל, חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה; וּלְאָדָם, לֹא-מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ .וַיַּפֵּל יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים תַּרְדֵּמָה עַל-הָאָדָם, וַיִּישָׁן; וַיִּקַּח, אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו, וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר, תַּחְתֶּנָּה .וַיִּבֶן יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר-לָקַח מִן-הָאָדָם, לְאִשָּׁה; וַיְבִאֶהָ, אֶל-הָאָדָם .וַיֹּאמֶר, הָאָדָם, זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי, וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי; לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה, כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקְחָה-זֹּאת .עַל-כֵּן, יַעֲזָב-אִישׁ, אֶת-אָבִיו, וְאֶת-אִמּוֹ; וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד .וַיִּהְיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם עֲרוּמִּים, הָאָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ; וְלֹא, יִתְבֹּשָׁשׁוּ He posted it one verse per line, so all you have to do is count down to find the verses in question. Do you see the waw-consecutive at the beginning of each line? If not, look closer. So here again I've given my reasons to favor the KJV rendition of these verbs. It's time for you to give your reasons for favoring the NIV rendition. If you aren't planning on doing that in your next post, then, please, don't waste your time writing it or my time making me read it.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Ball's still in your court anytime you're ready to play.
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
This is why I keep having trouble grasping exactly what is going on with the verbs in biblical Hebrew. Everyone describes the verbs as being merely aspectual, but labels the verbs as though they contain tense information as well. It's not just you, by the way.
Here is the difference:
quote: quote: See, the perfect is a tense and denotes relative time information as tenses do (along with other information). The perfective on the other hand is an aspect and does not denote relative time information but speaks only to the completedness of the action (as you have said). Many sources I have read on this in an attempt to gain a quick understanding of the situation describe the verb system as you have: perfect/imperfect, completed/uncompleted. But these two don't really go together; only one can be true. Either biblical Hebrew has a perfect/imperfect distinction and so encodes tense information in the verb or it does not encode tense information and so has a perfective/imperfective distinction. And then it is probably more nuanced than that with the waw-consecutive and all, but even as it stands at a basic level the descriptions aren't adequate to convey the specifics of the situation. A lot of it, I am sure, boils down to the fact that all the sources are aimed at laymen looking to learn quickly and easily with little technical background (not that something you can get off Wikipedia in ten minutes should even be considered 'technical background', but hey). That with the fact that providing an English gloss pretty much ensures confusion with tenses (since all English verbs carry tense information), and it's an outright mess trying to get to the truth of it without buying some $30 peer-reviewed journal article off the Internet. So maybe you can clear this up. Is it perfect/imperfect or perfective/imperfective? ABE: Oh, and so far I have just been going with the descriptions given and assuming everyone means 'perfective' and 'imperfective' when they say 'perfect' and 'imperfect'. If indeed there is tense information in the verbinformation that denotes relative timethen 'perfect' and 'imperfect' are probably okay terms, but then we have to say that the 'tense' is not 'ambiguous'. ABE2: Maybe this explanation I just found will help: Biblical Hebrew Grammar for Beginners (PDF). I'm reading it now to find out. On second thought, that source looks pretty bad... Edited by Jon, : No reason given. Edited by Jon, : No reason given. Edited by Jon, : No reason given. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
But this does not mean that they should all be translated the same way. Of course.
The waw-consecutive is the normal form for narrative, and is normally translated "and then x happened, and then y happened, ..." Of course.
What are these other means? I was referring particularly to 2:8 which uses a different verb form for 'form'. 'Plant' uses the imperfective+waw-consecutive. 'Form' is in the perfective. It's apparently the same situation with 'take' from 2:22. It also occurs in 2:2, 1:29, etc. Maybe you can explain to me what is going on in these cases.
But the waw-consecutive form is also commonly used for pluperfect. The context determines whether it should be translated as past or pluperfect. Can you provide an example?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
It may be more accurate for grammarians to use the term "perfective" instead of "perfect", but all of the old grammars use the term "perfect" and most modern ones follow suit. That's exactly the information I was looking for. Thanks! I will check out those links too.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I think you're correct. As Jack Collins says,
quote: But now the question is whether that would apply to the cases in question (the verbs at the beginning of 2:8 and 2:19).
I already did, at the end of the message that you replied to! I was thinking of something outside of the creation myths perhaps. And, to me at least, the simple past seems perfectly fine in 2:15. It just orients the audience back into the narrative after the rant about Eden and its relation to the author's present world. Any cases where a construction like that found in Gen 2:6—9, for example, is unarguably translated into the pluperfect?
And Jack Collins in the link above gives an extended discussion of the waw-consecutive used as a pluperfect, identifying grammatical clues that suggest a pluperfect sense. He concludes that Gen 2:19 should be translated as a pluperfect: "God had made the animals". I will read it. I will respond to it. Hopefully within the next 24 hours. I will say before I read it, though, that a translation of "God had made the animals..." creates as many problems as it solves for those who believe the accounts consistent. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
And Jack Collins in the link above gives an extended discussion of the waw-consecutive used as a pluperfect, identifying grammatical clues that suggest a pluperfect sense. He concludes that Gen 2:19 should be translated as a pluperfect: "God had made the animals". He identifies no 'grammatical clues'. His argument for the pluperfect is entirely apologetic. Where is his discussion of the 'grammatical clues' in his response to the charge that had the pluperfect sense been intended the author could easily have indicated as much?
quote: If there is some particular part of Collins' argument that you think really closes the case, then go ahead and quote it and we can discuss it. But I don't see anything in that paper that forms an even half-decent argument, especially on the grounds of language, for the pluperfect in Gen 2:19. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Are you reading the same paper that I am?!? I sure hope so!
Look at page 127-128, where Collins outlines three conditions: Okay, let's examine each of those three conditions in relation to Genesis' second creation myth. The first one:Some anaphoric reference explicitly points back to a previous event. This is Buth's first condition, and in addition to the verses explained by Buth, this would explain 1 Kings 21:8-9; 2 Kings 7:18-19; and possibly 2 Samuel 13:34 as discussed below. There's no evidence of this in Gen 2:19. In fact, the only way we can interpret the formation of animals in 2:19 as referring back to the creation of animals in 1:20—25 is if we assume they are a single and consistent story (i.e., that it must by necessity refer back to Gen 1 lest the stories contradict one another), which is to beg the question. Furthermore, based on several of the story's elements at this point it seems questionable that these can be considered the same event. Here are two of them:
So much for that; let's look at the second of Collins' points:The logic of the referent described requires that an event presented by a wayyiqtol verb form actually took place prior to the event presented by a previous verb. Well, there's again no evidence that 2:19 is a reference, and 1:20—25 a referent, so there is little to say on this point. It rests on the first condition, and since the first condition is unsupported, so too is this one. And now the third:The verb begins a section or paragraph. This was the sole instance allowed by Driver, in which he agreed that 'the chronological principle' of the wayyiqtol might be 'in abeyance'. This is the only condition met by 2:19, but it does not offer a compelling argument. As Collins claims, satisfaction of one of these conditions only means that 'the wayyiqtol may express pluperfect time' (p. 127), not that it necessarily does, so again, the decision to use the pluperfect still must rest on other considerations. So what are those considerations? Why should 'form' in 2:19 be put in the pluperfect while other verbs that begin their respective sections are translated into the simple past? Such considerations don't seem to exist for the verbs in 2:7, or 9 for example. Collins doesn't seem to have an answer for these important questions and it's probably because Collins' reason for preferring the pluperfect is only that doing so is technically possible and facilitates a harmonized reading of the creation accounts. Collins has no language-based argument for preferring the pluperfect in 2:19. His reasonings are purely apologetic. And apologetics are pretty much useless in this venue, unless they can amount to more than an attempt at harmonization.
On page 123 Collins gives the example of 1 Kings 21:8-9: 1 Kings 21:8—9 isn't Genesis 2:19.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
1) I claim that there are grammatical hints that a waw-consecutive should be translated as a pluperfect, and that Collins' paper summarizes these hints. His three conditions are gleaned from a fairly thorough critical analysis of claims by earlier Hebrew grammarians. They do not seem to be based on "apologetic" considerations, but on solid grammatical arguments. You have not argued against (or even addressed) the grammatical basis of his three conditions. I've addressed all three of his conditions. I laid out my complaints against the application of each one separately and clearly. To review:
quote: He is reading Genesis 2 in light of Genesis 1, and any honest attempt to address the issue of whether there is inconsistency between the two accounts cannot begin with such a reading.
Rather, so far as I can see, all of his arguments are grammatically and literarily based. Just because he spends 22 pages talking about Hebrew grammar doesn't mean his conclusion has anything to do with Hebrew grammar.
There is certainly an overarching question of how one views Genesis and its main author or final redactor. Did this person intend to compose a harmonized literary unity, or did he intend to piece together contradictory accounts without trying to resolve the contradictions? This question has some philosophical components, but I see it as primarily a literary question, not an apologetic question. The intents and competency of the redactor are somewhat irrelevant. But looking at the job done with, for example, the Flood story, we get a sense that resolving technical difficulties with conflicting source materials wasn't really among the redactors' priorities. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
You have only addressed the practical question of whether of not they apply to Gen 2. That's all that matters. If they aren't even applicable to the text in question, then the rest is irrelevant (at least in this thread).
Exactly. You have only addressed the application of these conditions to Gen 2, not the fundamental grammatical principles themselves. See above.
I've been more interested in exploring the grammatical principles. Then it might be worth your while to start a thread for that discussion. As far as this thread goes, if the principles cannot be shown to apply to the creation myths, then there's really no point discussing them.
You earlier seemed to take the general position that the Hebrew waw-consecutive could not be used as a pluperfect. I believe that it can, and have been trying to explore this general grammatical question. It's not about what is ultimately possible under some conditions somewhere. It is about what is happening in the Gen 1 and Gen 2 creation narratives.
But Gen 1 and 2 are part of a single composition, with Gen 1 intentionally placed before Gen2 for some reason. In some of his posts, arachnophilia discusses some of those reasons. For example:
quote: If Gen 1 was meant to supplant the other portions of the Gen 2 narrative, then we should not be surprised to find the two accounts contradicting one another in certain places, especially in those places where the redactors allowed them to treat the same subject matter (the creation of man, plants, and animals, for example).
I highly doubt that the author/redactor intended his readers to skip chapter one and to read chapter 2 in isolation. I agree that any honest attempt to address the issue of whether there is consistency or inconsistency between the two accounts cannot start by assuming its conclusion (either that they are consistent or that they are inconsistent). But I also believe that any honest attempt to understand the text must read Gen 2 in light of Gen 1, because this is the sequence that the author/redactor left us. Again, I see this as a literary issue, not an apologetic issue. The authors/redactors make mistakes all the time. If we followed your approach we'd conclude that there were no contradictions in the Bible. We have two separate stories from two separate sources. We get to look at them and decide how good of a job the redactors did in sewing them together. Did they smooth over the rough spots? Or did they leave a lot of inconsistencies behind? The fact is that the redactors here didn't fix the problems where their source materials disagreed.
The author/redactor put the material in a certain sequence, apparently intending that it be read in this way.
Their intentions are irrelevant to whether or not the contradictions exist. As I mentioned, the redactors of the Flood story probably never meant for their pieced together accounts to contain contradictory material, and they themselves might have even read the accounts as being consistent, but that doesn't change the fact that the contradictions exist. Or consider the conversion of Paul as told in Acts. Did his companions hear the voice he heard (Acts 9:7) or didn't they (Acts 22:9)? Just because the accounts were compiled into a single narrative by a redactor or group of redactors doesn't rule out the possibility of contradictions; indeed, the compilation into a single account seems to have almost no bearing whatsoever on the consistency of the finished product.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
specifically, to respond to your claim that the waw-consecutive could not convey a pluperfect sense. I don't recall making this claim.
I have provided support for my claim that the waw-consecutive CAN be and IS used as a pluperfect in Biblical Hebrew. Perhaps you have, but you haven't provided support for interpreting Gen 2:19 as being in a pluperfect sense, which has been one of the actual points of contention running through this thread.
If you think that a literary work is better understood by skipping entire chapters (or sentences or words), more power to you. They are two separate works; the fact that someone pasted them together doesn't change that.
I think this is a ridiculous position, but I have no interest in arguing against it here. That's unfortunate because that discussion would be relevant to the topic. Love your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024