What rhymes with “Samaritan”?
Claritin? That’d be tough to work into the parables. Maybe. We’ll have to see what Kyle Holt, author of “The Bible in Rhyme,” can come up with. Here’s a sample from his version of Genesis:
To govern the greatest and govern the least.
God took up His dirt, and He took up His dust
and then in the swiftest, most powerful gust
He blew into Adam the Godbreath of life.
But God realized Adam needed a wife
to be a companion, for man was alone.
So from His new man, God plucked out a bone.
At PoliticsDaily I posted on this Bible, thoughts which some here I fear might find risible.
Or is it libel? Liable?
UPDATE: “Never mind.” Via Joe Carter at First Things, we learn that the whole Genesis creation story really is a myth anyway:
Professor Ellen van Wolde, a respected Old Testament scholar and author, claims the first sentence of Genesis “in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth” is not a true translation of the Hebrew.
She claims she has carried out fresh textual analysis that suggests the writers of the great book never intended to suggest that God created the world—and in fact the Earth was already there when he created humans and animals.
[. . . ]
She said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb “bara”, which is used in the first sentence of the book of Genesis, does not mean “to create” but to “spatially separate”.
The first sentence should now read “in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth”
But what rhymes with “spatially separate”?
If you say it slowly—”American” rhymes with “Samaritan”.
Spatially separate? Hmmm! “Lovingly corporate”?
Facially desperate? Racially disparate?
“Glacially reprobate?”
I can see where the references to separating things in later verses like 1:6, 14 and 18 may influence the professor’s translation of verse 1. The obvious problem is that the verb to separate BDL (to separate) is used there whereas BR’ ( heretofore “to create”) is used in the first verse. Also the construction in vv. 6, 14 and 17 is “to separate the space between…and between…”, whereas the objects of the verb BR’ in verse 1 are joined by “and” and not “the space between…and between… I would like to see her entire argument. Is there a link to an article?
Alan, here’s a link to the Telegraph story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html
To be fair, she makes an interesting argument (and I say that knowing nothing of ancient Hebrew) and one that doesn’t necessarily (for me) change the foundational meaning of the creation story. But I think her “walkaway” quote is an interpretation too far.
The very first footnote in the New American Bible (a footnote to Genesis 1:1-2:4a) reads: “This section introduces the whole Pentateuch. It shows how God brought an orderly universe out of primordial chaos.” It doesn’t seem particularly incompatible with what Professor van Wolde is arguing. Certainly Genesis is not a description of creation ex nihilo. Maybe I am reading it incorrectly — I certainly can’t read Hebrew — but it appears to me that God doesn’t create water. It’s already there.
Also, it requires imposing our current cosmology on the story to say that the creation account in Genesis is about the universe.
Thanks, DG, for the link. I see where she is going, and it is not really that far fetched, as DN points out. Ancient Near Eastern creation myths presuppose primordial chaos that was then formed or shaped, sometimes in the midst of a violent battle, into heaven and earth. If Prof. Von Wolde can prove her point that there is something wrong with the construction in the first verse using bara (to create) and can demonstrate that the later constructions from vv. 6, 14, and 17 where “separating” occurs is the preferred creative action, then she may be able to make the case. She seems serious and is not hyping it like the spokesperson at her university. As in all scholarship she will present her argument and it will be evaluated by her peers. She says she welcomes vigorous debate. I hope she publishes her finding soon.
It is interesting that the verb BARA’ is restricted to divine action and that it seems to be used in a variety of contexts. I wonder how many of them would fit with the idea of separation.
This does at least explain why it is not valid to baptize in the name of the “Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier.” It has to be the “Separator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier.”
See also: http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/10/a-response-to-ellen-van-wolde-on-genesis-1.html
Jimmy Mac
Great link! Thanks!
Jimmy Mac,
An interesting link indeed. Obviously, E. van Wolde has some explaining to do. And so I think scholars need to allow her to explain her thesis before they try to undermine it. Pre-emptive strikes at this point are unwarranted.
Naturally desperate?
or perhaps, clearly desperate.
Bob and Nancy
Do you two communicate in some secret code?
There seems to be a little confusion here about whether the adjective (short final a) or the verb (long final a) is intended in “spacially separate.” Little Bear, Joe Komonchak, Bob Schwarz and Nancy appear to think it’s the former, whereas David Gibson’s rhyme is keyed to the latter.
Presuming that David, who wrote the post, knows which of these he’s rhyming with, I’ll offer a few suggestions presuming “separate” is the verb: graciously generate; kindly anticipate; thoughtfully vacillate; angrily castigate; firmly repudiate; and, of course, brilliantly radiate.
Interesting discussion about the Hebrew text of Genesis 1. Even if we accepted the argument, though, what does one do with the rest of the canon of scripture, which refers back to creation and Creator in so many ways and under so many different auspices, such as the psalms and the wisdom literature do, not to mention the prophets? It seems reductionistic to take such a rich and widely-used concept as “creation” and make a determination about its validity based on a single text, even an important text like Genesis 1.
Rita,
You make an excellent point about the whole of Scripture (did you study with B. Childs when you were at YDS?), and for the same reason I suspend judgment until Prof. van Wolde presents her thesis. In the Telegraph article provided by David Gibson she says explicitly that she is interpreting the first verse of Genesis in the context of the whole of Scripture. I take that to mean that she is either doing canonical criticism or history of traditions criticism. “Bara” is a rare and peculiar verb in Hebrew; the subject is always God. My hunch is that is it late, perhaps post-exilic. I suspect that Prof. van Wolde will argue that the earlier construction of Genesis 1:1 is one that conforms to the idea of separation as expressed in 1:6, 14, and 17, and that the present form of the text is a later interpolation. I will not die for that reading of what she is up to, since I have already argued for giving her a chance to present it. If that is not her line of argumentation I may take it up as my own.
Alan,
Yes, I did study with Childs–both Old Testament and biblical theology. In fact, he is one of my intellectual heroes. Despite the fact that his project did not take off as he hoped it would, it seems to me he was one of the most important voices in the field for our time.
Naturally, I too noticed Prof. van Wolde’s claim to ground her argument in the whole of Scripture. I just can’t imagine how she’ll do it! So I join you in looking forward to seeing whatever evidence and argument she actually puts forth.