THE CATACOMBS
You are here: Home
> Catacombs > Articles
On Genesis
1:1 — Did God get fat when he made the Universe?
Toward the end of June 2007, we received a
perplexing email that originated from an email address of a woman named...
uh, well, based on what happened with this email correspondence, maybe
we'd better not reveal the name of the woman. It turned out that the
lady's husband had used his wife's email address from which to send
us the following email:
In Genesis 1:1, [the word]
bara [is used]. This word does not mean "to create" in the Hebrew. It means
"to make fat or to fatten". [Using] this [meaning] would change the
traditional sense of the verse but it would make it more accurate. Create
comes from the Latin ex nihilo. I thought the ISV was supposed to be
more accurate or true to the text. How much of the ISV is based on the Latin
and tradition rather than truth? I guess I am looking for a more literal
version.
We decided to give this
reader the benefit of the doubt, and responded seriously to the reader's
comments, even though the inquirer went out of [his] way to insult the ISV
and its Committee on Translation. Here's how we responded to this email:
... Here's
the first paragraph in the as yet unreleased ISV of Genesis 1:
1In
the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2When the earth was
an unformed desolation, with the surface of the ocean depths shrouded
in darkness, and while the Spirit of
God was hovering over the surface of the waters,
3God said, “Let there be
light!” And there was light.
4God saw that the light was
good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
5God called the light
“Day,” and the darkness he called “Night.” The twilight and the dawning
were day one.
___________________________
Now as to
the meaning of bara. We're curious to learn the Hebrew language
qualifications of the person who taught you this hifil meaning of bara,
which occurs in the qal form in Genesis 1:1. The word bara is used in the
hifil grammatical form to mean "to fatten to obesity", but this occurs
only in 1 Samuel 2:29b, which reads in the ISV:
...And you
honor your sons more than me in order to fatten yourselves from the best
of all the offerings of my people Israel.’
The hifil
connotes causative action of the Qal form of the verb, or can be used to
turn a noun or verb into an adjective. An example of this might be the
word "ear", which when pointed with hifil identifying vowels turns the
noun into the hifil form of the verb "to hear" (literally, to lend an
ear). Or consider the Hebrew word for "far" or "far away". When pointed
with the hifil identifiers, it turns the word into "to remove oneself".
The hifil form of bara adds a reflexive nuance to the causative, resulting
in the subtle "to cause one to make himself fat", which is the nuance in 1
Samuel 2:29b. Note that in the hifil form of bara, the verb means to make
oneself fat, not merely "to fatten", as you claimed in your email. So if
Genesis 1:1 means "to fatten" (which it doesn't, since it's in the
qal
form, not the hifil, in Genesis 1:1), the nuance would mean that God
became overweight when he...uh, come to think of it, if you're right about
Genesis 1:1, there's no verb left in the passage to describe what God did
when he made the universe. So your view doesn't make sense. None of the
issues relating to the hifil of bara meaning "to make fat" are relevant
with respect to Genesis 1:1, where the verb form of bara is the qal, not
the hifil. Here's the relevant reading of a variety of biblical language
study aids that, if you had consulted them, would have corrected your
incorrect view that the use of the verb bara in Genesis 1:1 means "to
fatten" rather than "to create".
1.
Strong's Lexical entry, enhanced edition:
1254
בָּרָא,
בָּרָא,
בָּרָא [bara’
/baw·raw/]
v. A primitive root; TWOT 278; GK 1343 and 1344 and 1345; 54
occurrences; AV translates as “create” 42 times, “creator” three times,
“choose” twice, “make” twice, “cut down” twice, “dispatch” once, “done”
once, and “make fat” once.
1 to create, shape, form.
1a (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject).
1a1 of heaven and earth.
1a2 of individual man.
1a3 of new conditions and circumstances.
1a4 of transformations.
1b (Niphal) to be created.
1b1 of heaven and earth.
1b2 of birth.
1b3 of something new.
1b4 of miracles.
1c (Piel).
1c1 to cut down.
1c2 to cut out.
2 to be fat.
2a (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat.
2. James
Swanson's Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains. Note
the four entries for of bara in this dictionary. If you're
interested in "literal" readings about bara that are as non-sensical
as your suggestion to translate the word as "to fatten", why not choose
meaning 1345, which suggests that God cut down the planet as one clears a
forest? Or that God ate it for lunch (meaning 1346)?
1343
I.
בָּרָא (bā∙rā(˒)):
v.; ≡ Str 1254; TWOT 278—1.
LN 42.29-42.40 (qal)
create,
i.e., make something that has not been in existence before (Ge 1:1); (nif)
be
created (Ge 2:4);
2.
LN 42.29-42.40
make,
form or fashion something out of elements that exist (Ge 6:7; Isa
65:18; Jer 31:22);
3.
LN 42.7-42.28
do,
i.e., bring about, perform a task, with an emphasis on the uniqueness
of the event (Ex 34:10; Nu 16:30; Isa 45:7);
4.
LN 90.51-90.55
causes
something to happen (Am 4:13);
5.
LN 12.1-12.42 (qal act. ptcp.)
the
Creator, i.e., a title of a supernatural
being (Ecc 12:1; Isa 40:28; 43:15+);
6.
LN 13.67 unit:
בָּרָא לְ־ ־ִי טָהֹור לֵב (bā∙rā(˒)
l- -î ṭā∙hôr lēḇ) restore my purity,
formally, make for me a pure heart, i.e., bring back to a prior state
(PS 51:12[EB 10]+)
1344
II.
בָּרָא (bā∙rā(˒)):
v.; ≡ Str 1254; TWOT 278—LN 86.1-86.3 (hif)
fatten
to obesity, be overweight, i.e., gain
weight or be in a heavy state by apparently greedily eating choice
parts of meat meant for sacrifice (1Sa 2:29+)
1345
III.
בָּרָא (bā∙rā(˒)):
v.; ≡ Str 1254; TWOT 278—1.
LN 19.14-19.26 (piel)
cut
down, i.e., make a hacking motion that
results in the clearing of a forest (Jos 17:15, 18+);
2.
LN 42.29-42.40
hew,
cut, i.e., make a hacking motion that forms or fashions a wood object
(Eze 21:24[EB 19]+);
3.
LN 20.61-20.88
kill,
formally, cut down, i.e., hew or hack someone to death by violence (Eze
23:47+)
1346
IV.
בָּרָא (bā∙rā(˒)):
v.; ≡ Str 1262; TWOT 281—LN 23.1-23.39 (qal)
eat,
i.e., consume food (2Sa 12:17+), see also 1356
3.
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
278 בָּרָא
(bārā˒)
I, create, make, Creator (Qal);
choose, cut down, dispatch,
(Piel); be created, be done
(Niphal; RSV “yet unborn” in Ps 102:18 [H 19]; “clear ground” in Josh
17:15, 18; RSV and ASV “mark” in Ezk 21:19 [H 24]).
Derivative
278a בְּרִיאָה
(bĕrı̂˒â)
new thing.
The root
bārā˒
has the basic meaning “to create.” It differs from
yāṣar
“to fashion” in that the latter primarily emphasizes the shaping of an
object while
bārā˒
emphasizes the initiation of the object.
The question of the meaning of the root
bārā˒
is complicated by its connotation in the Piel of “cut down” (Josh
17:15, 18; Ezk 23:47). This meaning may also obtain in the use of the
word in Ezk 21:19 [H 24] where it need not connote carving a signpost,
but simply the act of cutting down a branch or sapling as a marker).
If this meaning attests to the concrete form of the Qal, the word may
have meant “to form,” “to fashion” in the sense of carving or cutting
out. But it is possible that the Piel form may represent an entirely
different root. KB (2d ed.) posits a second root used in the Piel
meaning “to cut down.” THOT (in loc.) follows KB (3d ed.) that there
is one root with the basic meaning “separate,” “divide.” This would
explain the usages of the Piel, but, as is often the case, is not
decisive for the nuance of the meaning “create” in the Qal. And, since
the word is used in such a distinctive sense in the Qal it is best to
consider the meaning of the root solely on the basis of usage.
The word is used in the Qal only of God’s activity
and is thus a purely theological term. This distinctive use of the
word is especially appropriate to the concept of creation by divine
fiat.
The root
bārā˒
denotes the concept of “initiating something new”
in a number of passages. In Isa 41:20 it is used of the changes that
will take place in the Restoration when God effects that which is new
and different. It is used of the creation of new things (ḥădāšôt)
in Isa 48:6–7 and the creation of the new heavens and the new earth (Isa
65:17). Marvels never seen before are described by this word (Ex
34:10), and Jeremiah uses the term of a fundamental change that will
take place in the natural order (Jer 31:22). The Psalmist prayed that
God would create in him a clean heart (Psa 51:10 [H 12]) and coupled
this with the petition that God would put a new spirit within him (See
also Num 16:30; Isa 4:5; 65:18).
The word also possesses the meaning of “bringing
into existence” in several passages (Isa 43:1; Ezk 21:30 [H 35];
28:13, 15).
It is not surprising that this word with its
distinctive emphases is used most frequently to describe the creation
of the universe and the natural phenomena (Gen 1:1, 21, 27; 2:3,
etc.). The usages of the term in this sense present a clearly defined
theology. The magnitude of God’s power is exemplified in creation.
This has implications for the weak (Isa 40:26; cf. vv. 27–31) and for
the unfolding of God’s purposes in history (Isa 42:5; 45:12). Creation
displays the majesty (Amos 4:13), orderliness (Isa 45:18), and
sovereignty (Ps 89:12 [H 13]) of God. Anthropologically, the common
creation of man forms a plea for unity in Mal 2:10. And man is seen as
created for vanity in Ps 89:47 [H 48].
THOT argues that this word is used only in the P
document and other late literature. Of course this view can only be
sustained by dividing and post-dating the documents.
The limitation of this word to divine activity
indicates that the area of meaning delineated by the root falls
outside the sphere of human ability. Since the word never occurs with
the object of the material, and since the primary emphasis of the word
is on the newness of the created object, the word lends itself well to
the concept of creation
e nihilo
although that concept is not necessarily inherent within the meaning
of the word.
בְּרִיאָה (bĕrı̂˒â).
New thing
(ASV “something new”). The word connotes something new or
extraordinary (Num 16:30). It thus reflects a basic connotation of the
root bārā˒
(Ex 34:10; Isa 48:6; Jer 31:22).
This would change the traditional sense of the verse but it would make it
more accurate.
Yes,
adopting your view would change the traditional sense of the verse. But
no, it wouldn't make it more accurate. It would make the statement
nonsensical and contrary to the plain meaning of Hebrew grammar.
Create comes from the Latin ex nihilo.
No, it
doesn't. The modern English verb "create" is from the late 1300's Middle
English verb creat. Genesis 1:1 teaches that God made the universe. As
something totally new, creating it from nothing that existed before.
That's what bara in the qal form means.
I thought the ISV was supposed to be more accurate or true to the text.
It is
accurate and true to the text. It's your view that isn't accurate. Or true
to the text.
How much of the ISV is based on the Latin and tradition rather than truth?
None. We're
not consulting the Latin to make the ISV. Only the Hebrew and Aramaic for
the Tanakh (with occasional references to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the LXX
when appropriate due to textual transmission problems—that are well
documented!—in the Massoretic Text) and the Greek for the New Testament.
While interesting for historical studies, the Vulgate is too far removed
from the original autographs to be of much interest or help in translating
into English. It's about as useful as translating a Spanish language Bible
into English. What's the point? We can read Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek...
I guess I am looking for a more literal version.
A more
literal version? Madam, your email demonstrates that you have no idea what
that term means when you're reading an English translation. The ISV of
Genesis 1:1 is faithful to the Hebrew and is as "literal" as can be made
into modern English. No, what you're really looking for is to find a
legitimate Bible language scholar to adopt your misinformed (at best) or
cultic (at worse) or more probably, just plain under-educated view
(whoever taught you this view about bara meaning "to make fat" doesn't
know enough Hebrew to tell the difference between qal and hifil). You
won't find somebody like that at the ISV Foundation.... That's because we
translate the text as we see the grammar, syntax, and historical context
require it to be translated.
I'm Bcc'ing
a copy of this email to a rabbi whom I've known for some time. He's a very
competent Hebrew scholar from the orthodox traditional view. I'll invite
him to comment back to me what he thinks of your view, and my rebuttal of
it. If it's interesting, I'll forward the answer to you.
A few hours later we
received the following response:
Thank you for the concise and well informed reply. I will reexamine my
Hebrew grammer. My wife has informed me not to use her email anymore.
We didn't respond to that
response. For one thing, the word is spelled grammar. And his wife
was right. For a man who wouldn't know an alef from a beyt to hide behind
his wife's identity to insult the ISV is not only a scholarly shame, but
the attitude behind this behavior is arrogant at best, and enters the
realm of downright hubris at worst. "How much of the ISV is based on the
Latin and tradition rather than truth?" Gimme a break. Wisdom is justified
by her children, to quote the Lord Jesus, and while it's true that there's
no such thing as a stupid question, certain questions (like that one) do
reveal the stupidity of the questioner.
Now about that Rabbi...
My friend Rabbi Aaron lives in
Los Angeles, where's he's a highly respected leader in the Orthodox Jewish
community. He's well know also for his work in providing responses to the
Messianic Christian community. We became friends initially through our
mutual defense pact, so to speak, against the threats faced by America and
the West from radical, Wahabbi-type, conservative Islam. I sent him the
email we received, and he sent us this response:
I read through this lady's tortured attempt to fudge with the word bara. I
found absolutely no merit to her claim and really haven't much to add to
your skillful refutation. I would merely add that the word in Aramaic can
mean "outside." As you see, even with the Aramaic translation, it hardly
leads any credence to this misinformed lady's efforts to re-interpret what
God is trying to convey to us, to wit, He created the world ex nihilo.
That notion is totally lost if one were to adopt her translation.
It's really too bad that I had
to write Rabbi Aaron back and inform him that the writer had assumed his
wife's identity...
|
