INTRODUCTION.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep."
"And the earth was without form ... " or "But the earth had become a ruin... ". Which is the more correet translation? It could make a tremendous difference.
The first two verses of Genesis chapter one have been translated in essentially the same way in virtually every English Version from that authorized in 1611 by James I (no mean Hebrew scholar him self!) to those 'modern idiom' versions which seem to have been appearing with ever increasing frequency in recent years. One might therefore reasonably suppose that the rendering from the Hebrew into English of this particular passage is a perfectly straightforward matter without any ambiguity whatever. Not a few modern writers would like us to think so.
Unfortunately, this is not really the case. Some difference of opinion about the precise meaning of the original has existed for centuries. A substantial number of Hebrew scholars have held that the wording of verse 2 may be translated in a way which gives the reader a fundamentally different impression as to its meaning. And even the relationship between verse 1 and verse 2 is a matter of Scripture that we have to depend ultimately for light on Hebrew usage. It seems to me of secondary importance to determine to what extent the meaning we derive from the passage can be squared with current geological doetrine, even though it is reasonable enough to attempt a reconciliation where possible. But such reconciliation must always be held with reserve, for the current scientific view with which harmony might thus be achieved may itself fail to survive an increase in our knowledge of the earth's past history. Modern theories of cosmogony and of earth history are very much in a state of flux and the certainties of yesterday (a steady-state universe, for example) are no longer the certainties of today. This, in a nutshell, is my feeling about the means whereby to determine the correct translation of Gen. 1. 2.
But I also think that the issue needs resolving, if at all possible, because it has increasingly become a fertile source of provocation for all sorts of hard feelings and pontifical pronouncements on the part of both its adherents and its opponents. Some will surely appear in this book! The subject has become emotionally charged and, as a consequence, it is difficult to evaluate it without becoming involved in the crossfire. There is no middleground anylonger. One must apparently accept all the accrretions and assigned implications if one expresses any opinion that favours either view. It is no longer possible, or at any rate it has become increasingly difficult, to isolate the fundamental issue of the precise meaning of the Hebrew original from all the superstructures that have been built upon particular interpretations of it. And the quite erroneous opinion that the view adopted in this volume originated only with the challenge of modern Geology dies very hard indeed.
The term, "Gap Theory", has become an epithet of disaprobation in many quarters. It is widely supposed that only pinheads and nitwits give any serious thought to the matter any more. We are assured that the interpretation has not an ounce of weight in its favour from the linguistic point of view. .. . It is linguistic nonsense "as every Hebrew scholar knows", or so says the voice of one authority. Or to quote the views of a more recent author, an organic chemist, who dismisses a question that has engaged some of the best Hebrew scholars with complete assurance by stating categorically that the thesis is "unscriptural, unreasonable, and unscientific". So one might wonder if it is worth a moment's notice.
But history shows that as soon as "all authorities are agreed", this is when there is greatest need for caution. Majority opinion is important...but never decisive. We accept majority rule in government not because the majority is most likely to be right but because if they are wrong they are not likely to be so dangerously wrong as the minority would be. It is a safety device - not a guarantee of infallibility.
Unfortunately, human beings accept authority rather easily. It saves having to think for oneself.... We find it more convenient to quote an authority than to become one: and such is human nature that if we quote authorities with sufficient force or frequency, we become an authority merely by the doing of it! As George Eliot said, it is possible for a man to appear so learned by his quotes that the appearance becomes a proof of what he believes. Quotationmarks provide a reinforcement for an observation which lessens (or seems to lessen) the more important requirement that it be the truth. So authoritarianism spawns itself. Tremendous vocal support can be given through the medium of the printed word to statements made by genuine authorities who have been misinterpreted or misrepresented or misunderstood by lesser authorities, or to statements which the original authors have themselves since abandoned. The printed word is powerful in its persuasiveness! Things get repeated so frequently in the literature that they begin to achieve the status of unchallengeable and inspired truths, The cliche that the Hebrew word
 (bara) means "to create out of nothing" and that it is used only of divine activity, is a case in point. Both parts of the statement are demonstrably false. As to the first, we know that Scripture says of Adam that he was created out of the dust of the ground, not ex nihilo. And as to the second, a Young's Concordance will soon show the English reader that the supposed rule is not true in this regard either. The fact is that the Hebrew word may indeed mean creation ex nihilo..... and probably does in Gen.l.l. But it is not something that inheres in the word itself. And the word is only limited to divine activity in one particular verbal form (the Kal), while in its other forms it is used of human activity. To say that in these 'other' cases it does not mean "to create" is not the issue. The statement, so often made without qualification, is that the verb is never used except of divine activity. And this is simply not true.
Now, in order to avoid misunderstanding, I must repeat something which I said earlier, namely, that the question of whether Genesis, Chapter one, can be squared with modern geological theory is of secondary importance. I do not for one moment say it is quite un-important. It is important. But the more important thing is, undoubtedly, to determine what Genesis says. Other issues are secondary. My own conclusions as to the meaning of Gen. 1. 2 does not accord with that reflected in almost every version published in the last fifty or sixty years. This might seem sufficient reason for discounting it. But it is well to keep the door of inquiry open anyhow, and this is really all that one can hope to achieve by such a study as this. And I think it can be demonstrated that in some respeets at least, current generally accepted views are not altogether correct.
This book is not written therefore for anyone who, for example, has already decided that the correct and only reasonable rendering of  in Gen. 1. 2 is as the simple copulative "was" and who as a consequence has no interest in any further light which may be available on the subject. It is written for those who still have an open mind and who do not expect in such questions as these to achieve absolute certainty where we are dealing with an ancient language whose grammar and syntax we still do not understand completely. It is written for those who would like to know something of what is to be said on both sides. There is no question that virtually all the usual authorities quoted at the present time, if they are not against my rendering, at least have not seen fit to recommend it as a preferred alternative, though some certainly admit it. But this need not deter one, because these same authorities contradict them selves in certain critical ways. Keil refuses to recognize the possibility of "became" for "was" in Gen. 1. 2 but suggests it for "was" in Gen. 3. 20 where the same word occurs in precisely the same form. And in some cases they later changed their minds on the matter, as Delitzsch seems to have done, and as Dillman expressly did, for example. And other authorities like S. R. Driver, unhesitatingly acknowledged the scholarship of contemporaries such as Pusey who held precisely the views I hold and for the same linguistic reasons.
Some writers, of course, are impatient and cannot be bothered to examine the question with sufficient thoroughness. If one has not actually examined the occurrences of the verb  that are listed for illustrative purposes in the best lexicons of the Hebrew language, one can say with some show of self-confidence, as one well-known writer has, "the verb  is sometimes used to mean "became if the context demands it, but the verb as it stands is "was" as anyone who has studied Hebrew will testify". 1 This has the appearance of a profoundly learned observation, but is in fact quite incorrect. It is so easily proven false that one wonders what is happening to Christian scholarship.
Some hold that the meaning of Gen. 1. 2 is obvious. Such writers dismiss the complexity of the problem in a paragraph and then propose to return to "the simple study" of the meaning of the passage. Such writers seem to hold the view that the matter can be safely left to the ordinary reader's good sound common sense. The obvious meaning is obviously the true meaning.
Many years ago, J. Harris wrote: 2
"When it is objected that the decision of the question might safely be left to any unbiased mind on a perusal of the English version of the text, the objector is evidently calculating on the effect likely to be produced on the 'unbiased' mind by the mere juxtaposition of the opening verses, and by the conjunction and given to the Hebrew particle waw, which commences the second verse. His, however, is an appeal not to his knowledge but to his ignorance. It is to take advantage, not of his judgment, but of his lack of it. For unless, by an act of marvellous intuition, he could infer the Hebrew original from the English rendering, he may, for aught he knows to the contrary, be pronouncing on the meaning of a faulty translation. So that the question to be first decided relates to the correct rendering of the original."
This was written in 1874.
Some have held that linguistically it is not possible to determine with certainty how the passage should be translated and that therefore one must decide the issue exegetically. They then propose that "contextual support" for any other view than that commonly accepted is entirely lacking. But this begs the question altogether. The context of so many passages is nothing more than the bias of the reader. To argue that "context" supports one's own views in such a case is merely to say that one's particular interpretation of the context supports one's own particular bias. Moreover, it is difficult to see how a context could be established for what is only the second sentence in a book covering such a vast span of time and subject matter as the Bible does.
To me, this issue is important, and after studying the problem for some thirty years and after reading everything I could lay my hands on pro and con and after accumulating in my own library som e 300 commentaries on Genesis, the earliest being dated 1670, I am persuaded that there is, on the basis of the evidence, far more reason to translate Gen. 1. 2 as "But the earth had become a ruin and a de solation, etc." than there is for any of the conventional translations in our modern versions. This persuasion rests upon an examination of the evidence itself not only in the light of commentaries and lexicons but of other related works on linguistics, of some of the better known ancient versions in languages other than English - such as the Targum of Onkelos, the Book of Jasher, the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and of the voluminous works of the early Church Fathers (of which I have the 40 volume Scribner edition), as well as upon the writings of the Medieval Scholars.
I used to enjoy argument, but I no longer do. Whatever the impression to the contrary which my particular style of writing may give, I have not set down these conclusions merely to provoke a battle with those who, will disagree. I am prepared to leave the matter to sort itself out with time, in the firm belief that the truth will ultimately become apparent. Some wrong conclusions will be manifest enough to those better qualified than I: no claims to finality are made. After some years in scientific research where one always has the privilege at all times of the sharper ciiticisms of one's colleagues, it has seemed to me that more value would be attached to a work which honestly and genuinely sought to note the weaknesses (as well as the strengths) of the position favoured by the author. Perhaps in an underhand kind of way, one may hope to lessen the force of the contrary evidence by admitting its validity! Sometimes a note of sarcasm has crept in. This is not the best weapon as I know only too well - but it can add spice to an otherwise rather indigestible menu. Occasionally it has been necessary to repudiate or ignore a favourable line of argument which others have felt important. But this has usually been done only where the evidence is of an ambiguous nature. For example, the command given to Noah, after the old order had been destroyed by the Flood, was to "replenish" theearth. The same command was given centuries earlier to Adam (Gen. 1. 28). One could argue that the implications of the second occasion should properly apply to the first also, thus allowing one to assume a similar situation - namely, an old, old order destroyed, an emptied world in need of re-filling. Perhaps.... Yet the Hebrew word  (malah) does not really mean to re-fill, but only to fill. There are other such instances. The evidence is not, to my mind, decisive enough and has not been considered worthy of inclusion. The case is strong in its own right and needs no doubtful assists. A series of appendices provides background evidence (in some quantity) without disrupting the flow of the argument in the text itself.
So these, then, are the principles upon which this volume has been written. We hope only by opening out fresh views that we may contribute light to minds of greater precision who may thus be enabled to hit upon the exact truth.
POSTSCRIPT:
One further matter which I consider of some importance before
proceeding to this study. There are not available to me any libraries
of the kind which would hold volumes particularly relevant to the issue
involved here. Some of the Jewish literature, for example, is not
obtainable for study, and I lack a few of the older commentaries of
such scholars as Keil, for example. As far as possible, I have
purchased copies of everything I could locate in Europe, in England,
and in the United States. Sometimes a particularly desirable work
has been advertised in some catalogue but sold before my order
reached the agent. At other times I have been more than ordinarily
fortunate....
On the whole, my own research library forms an enviable colleetion. Nevertheless, I am still limited to secondary sources in some important areas, besides being very limited indeed with respect to the reading of works in other languages - such as German. I greatly dislike quoting second-hand but it has been unavoidable at times. The reader will quickly discern where this has occurred, but I have made every attempt to make it apparent. By far the greater part of this volume, however, is based on first hand verification. The loan facilities (by mail) of libraries such as that of the University of Toronto have been used to advantage but many theological colleges whose holdings would have proved most valuable do not have such facilities.
And, lastly, translations from Hebrew, Greek, or Latin are my own unless otherwise stated. The Italians have a proverb: tradittore traditture, 'to translate is to betray'. I may now and then have betrayed the original, albeit unintentionally. But some freedom in the use of idiom is essential, and in my rendering of the Latin quotations, for, example, I may have taken liberties which a purist will not like. But the original is also given in any case - and I do not believe any injustice has been done to the excerpts.
|
What is the gap theory ?
Dansk side
Hvad er gap teorien ? 
Hvad mener jeg med skabelse ?
Skabelse
Links
For danske artikler af mig, se:
Skabelse - gap teorien
New Email
Please link to me
The Gap theory blog
Sitemap
goto frontpage The gap theory page
|