I was thinking the same thing when I read the post about her book. Apparently, if I call my ideas new, even when they are not, it will help get it published.

People need something to get all excited about, or life’s boring. If you can’t find something new to get all excited about, why not get all excited about something old? It’s like rediscovering nifty clothes at the back of your closet that you didn’t know you had.

That’s a good way of putting it, Angie!

Setting aside the supposed novelty of the idea, is the idea tenable?

John,
I think the idea of God using preexistent matter in his creative activity described in Gen 1 is tenable but her application of the meaning of “to separate” with bara in Gen 1:1 is not. Chris Heard has a good discussion of this at http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=1535

Charles,

I read Chris’s discussion, and I agreed with it. I was just wondering if you had anything to add.

I’m wondering if her (alleged) application of the ANE to the biblical presentation of creation is valid. The myths do not admit of a creation ex nihilo, but I’m wondering if Genesis 1:1 is a direct confrontation to the pre-existent matter position. On the face of the text, the verse affirms a creation of the heavens and the earth, which seems to imply that they were not there in the first place. The Ancient versions did not interpret the text any differently, but only seem to affirm this position.

[...] HT: Charles [...]

John,

There are two explanations that make the theory tenable. Walton proposes a functional definition to bara’ instead of a generative meaning. So, what God did in Gen 1 was to give the preexistent matter its various functions.

Second, repoint bara’ as an inf construct to match the first line of the second creation account in 2:4b.

True that no ancient version goes theses routes but some would not see this as significant since the versions were made a long time after the composition of the first chapters of Gen. Now, it goes without saying that just because a theory might be tenable it doesn’t neccessarily make it correct or even likely.

Charles,

Why bother repointing bara’ at all? It is unnecessary and detracts from the stylistic elevation of putting a noun in construct with a finite verb (used elsewhere).

John,
I think Gen 1 is trying primarily to tackle the issue of polytheism vs. monotheism in ancient Israel, which leaves creatio ex nihilo as a battle to fight another day (among Hellenistic period thinkers)!

Hey Carl, I wasn’t proposing my own theory, I have just read others who advocate reading bara’ as an infinitive and was passing this along as a reason why part of Van Wolde’s theory is tenable.

Charles,

Thanks for your response. Agreed, that some will not find the reading of the Versions persuasive due to the time gap, though many of these same scholars will also date the composition of Genesis 1 much later, right? Perhaps, to the fifth century after the 6th century Babylonian myths, right? If this is the case (and I do not hold this view), there is only about 200 years from the original composition to the translation of the LXX and Judaism’s (as opposed to the OT’s position on these scholars’ opinion) view of creatio ex nihilo. It seems to me that these scholars can’t have it both ways. They want to discard the readings of the Versions and have a super late date of the original composition. If they adhere to a late date of composition, I think they have to consider more seriously the fact that they are discounting the evidence of the Versions, which actually arose relatively soon after the original composition on their view. Now, if they date Genesis 1 to the 2nd millennium BC, they may have an argument to make against the Versions on the basis of time, but of course a super early date does not mean that the reading of the Versions is wrong either.

Carl,
Why does it matter that creatio ex nihilo is pounded out in the Hellenistic era, when the texts could be and probably are teaching the same doctrine? Why can’t Gen. 1 accomplish two goals: monotheism and creatio ex nihilo? I think this is the clearest reading of Genesis 1:1 and several other places in the OT seem to depend on it (Is 40:28, 42:5, 45:7 et al). Of course the NT depends on these texts for its doctrine of creation (John 1:1-2, Hebrews 11:3; Colossians 1 et al.). Is this an example of the right doctrine from the wrong texts or wrong doctrine from the wrong texts in your view?

John,
You make some great points–people can’t have their cake and eat it too. Personally, like you, I do value the versions quite a lot.

If Gen 1 is from the 5th century BCE, it’s as close to Ezekiel as to the LXX. Ezek 21:24 (21:19 in RSV) uses bara’ with a singular object and plainly with the sense of “make” or “set up,” but not “separate.”

I like best Kerry’s comment to the Telegraph story: “The question still remains: If God did not create the earth, who did?” That bara’ does not necessarily have the exact meaning “create ex nihilo” doesn’t mean that God did not create the universe ex nihilo, or even that the Hebrews didn’t believe He did.