Here is a link to a short (13:00 or so) video I made searching for the structure of Genesis 1:2 and its verb, hayah (“to be”) The video was prompted by a comment to an earlier post I made about the “gap theory.” That theory of interpreting Genesis 1:1-3 in part depends on translating the verb hayah as “became” (instead of “was”). The video shows there is only one other passage that pretty closely approximates the structure of Gen 1:2 where the verb hayah is present. The point I make is that there is nothing in that second verse to merit the idea that the verse (or anything surrounding it) describes a “becoming” (as opposed to a mere state of existence).
Again, the gap theory has nothing exegetically to commend it. But it’s real death knell is the clause structure of Genesis 1:1-3 anyway.
The file is large (HD), but runs on Quicktime. Give it time to load.
What program do you use for screencasting?
Camtasia
Michael, very nice thanks for the work and the time you put into this – much apprecciated. I will give this link to the person I am conversing with about this subject. I am sure it will be helpful to those interested.
By the way ever thought about doing these types of videos more often?
Thanks!
thanks; not really — I just do one when it seems the best thing to do.
Even if the “Gap Theory” is true, what is gained? The next thing it says in English Bibles is “formless and empty,” or generally synonymous terms, so I trust it is accurate to translate it that way. If it is formless, it has no outline; and if it is empty, there is nothing inside. That sounds like a poetic way of saying the earth had no existence. If there was a reconstruction, then it was such as would leave no fossil record. The “Gap Theory” also requires an explanation of how some things that were recorded as created during the six days were actually created much sooner, making a lot of hoops to jump through.
yeah, I don’t see much being gained, either.
Yes true enough but the guy I am talking with takes tohu wabohu as a cataclysmic destruction by God’s judgement. Each ‘age’ ends with this judgement and there were at least two before the present period following the flood. One being Gen.1:2 and the second being the flood itself. It is hard just to keep him focused on the text at hand before running off into arguing about ‘ages’ and their deliniations and such. For him the earth is present in this tohu wabohu state in Gen1:2. Just to show you how much of an uphill battle I have with this guy he uses the Concordant Literal Bible – he actually works for the publishing company. I obviously love to torture myself. 🙂
Michael,
That’s good stuff. Did new evidence emerge in the last 50 years that would change our way of understanding Hebrew?
I ask because I had an old pastor years ago who taught the gap theory and he was summa cum laude in Hebrew, but, he graduated U around 1950 and probably never re-visited the language scholastically again regardless of new findings.
Oddly enough, the wrong interpretation helped me because it prevented me being a “young earth” fundy, which I still count as a positive. Until I read John Walton’s book, I thought gap was accurate.
Not really; most Hebrew students never get past the basic grammar and morphology. Grad school requires more attention to syntax and that sort of thing.
MSH,
Way off topic, but I’ve been tussling with Thom Stark over the interpretation of Deut 32:8-9 in the comments section of my Amazon review of his book. Like yourself, I think Yahweh should be identified with Elyon in vv. 8-9 and have recently come up with what I think is a good argument to that effect but I’d like to get your reaction to it seeing as how you’ve spent a lot of time on this issue.
(1) There’s an old tradition in the Hebrew Bible that identifies Yahweh as the most high god (cf. Gen 14:22; 1 Kings 19:22; Ps 7:17; 9:1-2; 18:13; 21:7; Job 1:6).
(2) There’s another old tradition in the Hebrew Bible that sees Israel as being separate from the nations so as not to be counted among them (cf. Gen 10; Num 23:9; Deut 26:19; 28:1, 10, 64; 29:24).
(3) The author/redactor that put Deuteronomy in its final form clearly thought of Yahweh as the most high god on the basis of Deut 10:17 and therefore identified Elyon with Yahweh in 32:8-9. Hence, the reading of vv. 8-9 that identifies Yahweh with Elyon is the synchronic reading of these verses.
(4) The old traditions mentioned in (1) and (2) mutually reinforce each other in the synchronic reading of vv. 8-9 that was identified in (3). To wit, if we suppose that Yahweh is Elyon in vv. 8-9 then Israel cannot be one of the nations in v. 8 for then it would be given to a son of Elyon and not Yahweh, hence Israel must be separate from the nations and not counted among them. On the other hand, if we suppose that Israel is separate from the nations and not counted among them in v. 8 then it follows that Yahweh cannot be one of the sons of Elyon in v. 8 for the latter are not given Israel as an inheritance, hence Yahweh must be identified with Elyon in vv. 8-9 by process of elimination.
(5) What we observe in (4) is highly unlikely if the synchronic reading of vv. 8-9 is not also the original diachronic reading of vv. 8-9. Therefore, the synchronic reading of vv. 8-9 that identifies Yahweh with Elyon is almost certainly the diachronic reading of these verses.
What do you think of this argument?
It makes sense to me, but in part only because Thom has to assume a very precise chronology of sources and redaction to argue his view — but, as I have pointed out several times, that chronology does not derive from any feature of the Hebrew grammar and syntax, or development in the language; it has to be assumed and imposed as a hermeneutical filter. In the absence of any such grid, what you propose is workable, though I’d avoid categorical language (“must”). Arguments need to be text-driven and demonstrate likelihood on an exegetical basis. That is where Thom’s view ultimately fails.
It seems obvious that the author equates Elyon with YHWH in Deut.32:8-9 but I have a problem with number 1 – according to Ex.6:3 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not know Elyon or El Shaddai as YHWH. There seems to be alot of old ANE motifs recast with YHWH as Elyon. When you read Genesis it sounds as if the fathers are relating to God as YHWH. What gives?
See this link and scroll down to under “some nit picking”
http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2009/10/zibbc-exodus/
I’ll be honest. This week I read the book “Without Form And Void” – by Arthur C. Custance – and it seemed to me “convincing”. However, when I read his review, I was in doubt. Michael, tell me, as the author of missed? Need not address everything. I say this because it seems officer sufficient reasons why the verb “was” can be translated “became.”
It also shows the opinion of other scholars that even disagreeing with the theory, seems to assume that such a position is at least “exegetically permissible”.
This leaves me confused. I am divided because their own theologians are divided on the subject. Some say “may”, so they show their reasons, and others say can not (you), then show their grammatical and all reasons. Then I read another book or website that say “yes,” and others say “no.”
What I am observing that “sick game” syntax, clause and verbs is that, regardless of who is right or wrong, both sides seem from certain assumptions that such a grammatical construction is indeed like that.
What remains to be seen is what passed in the author’s mind when writing it. That’s why for more conversant in a language that a person possar be, in the end, there will always be a need to depend on certain “assumptions” about the grammar.
I’m from Brazil. Sorry for bad english.
I’m not following the initial question / paragraph.
Generally, very few OT scholars give the gap theory any credence, as it violates the syntax. In addition (me talking here), I also think it’s trying to make the Bible account for something it was never intended to account for (science). Lastly, there is no reason you couldn’t have fossil death before the fall. Look at Rom 5:12 closely – it references only human death, not animal or plant. So, even without bringing science into the discussion, what the gap theory is supposed to help resolve doesn’t need resolution in the first place.
Regardless of who is right or wrong, the fact is that even the most learned will have to base their interpretation on assumptions from the “evidence”. Surely the Sr.Haeser is aware of it. Sure, you say that the syntax, etc., does not allow such an interpretation (range) or even translation of “became” in Genesis 1: 2. But who can say this with absolute certainty, since even such statements are also based on assumptions? And from what I know “assumptions” are not conclusive and absolute truths. If it’s right, they would not have as many interpretations around Genesis 1: 1-3. Even the “gap theory” has grammatical evidence in their favor, even if it is weak (dim) and doubtful. If this were not true, some dictionaries and comments would not take this as a “possibility” of grammatical point of view. Even the official position of Sr.Haeser over the first three clauses of Genesis 1, depends on grammatical assumptions. And from what I learned, “assumptions” are not absolute or conclusive truths, even if the evidence seems to indicate that.
I can say with absolute certainty that the gap theory violates Hebrew syntax. Gen 1:1-3 is not a linear sequence, which undermines a “became” translation for hayah. How’s that? Rob Holmstedt, and expert in Hebrew syntax and linguistics is also quite sure:
http://michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedBible/2013/08/genesis-113-hebrew-grammar-matter-understanding-hebrew-scriptures/
In the end, all of us in some way, we try to fit our own vision in Genesis. For example: You say that the Genesis speaks of two humanities, one in Eden and other living out of Eden. Of course, it is not two different human groups, but only human. Of course, this is only a presupposition – even though no author bible has spoken it. The fact is that all of us will want to look at Genesis with our current view, even though many say they do not. But at some point, this will be true and something modern will be introduced in Genesis.
No, I don’t “say” that. It’s an idea that has been around since the 17th century, and gained some momentum in the wake of Darwin in the late 19th century. The gap theory likes ideas like that. But I didn’t put that forth as my position.
Excuse me for “accusation”. It was just what struck me when reading your article. I was totally unaware that the idea was not created by you. However, the article seems to endorse the idea or am I wrong? In part I found interesting, though not definitive. But is the gap theory, day-age or, or traditional, the fact is that such theories only becomes impossible when we assume that the traditional assumption (sentence structure) is absolute, irrefutable, definitive, conclusive, thereby precluding any another interpretation, same as the others have few grammatical evidence in their favor. However, since the traditional interpretation assumes that such clauses is in fact so, yet, she does not cease to be a theory, and as such depend on certain assumptions. And as we all are aware, assumptions – however they are consensual among scholars -. Are not absolute truths and defintivas ”
Who actually has the final word on the sentence structure of Genesis 1: 1-3, when the very scholars disagree as to the syntactic structure, not being they insentos leaving assumptions (or interpretivas theories)? Reading the artido academic Robert Holmstedt (Genesis 1.1-3, Hebrew Grammar, and Translation), it seems that Genesis 1: 1-3 allows the idea of a universe and a pre-existing land (found very interesting). In the end, everything depends on some theories and theories and more theories. I like a lot of their studies, as encouraged me to study a little Hebrew ….
language works the way it works. That’s what makes speech or text comprehensible. The grammar and syntax of Gen 1:1-3 allows certain views and disallows others.