On Thu, 4 Jan 1996 22:23:30 -0500 Glenn wrote:
GM>Jim and Denis point out that verse 1 and 2 form a single thought. I
>will withdraw my claim that v.1 is an executive summary.
[...]
IMHO Glenn has given up too easily! There are many OT scholars who
maintain that Gn 1:1 is indeed an "executive summary", e.g.:
"The sequence of particular declarations in vs. 1-3 comprises in its
details a theological wealth of reference whose fullness is scarcely
to be comprehended. We do not follow the old conjecture that v. I is
not to be understood as an independent sentence but as the
introductory clause to v. 2 or even to v. 3 ("at the beginning when
God created heaven and earth..."). Syntactically perhaps both
translations are possible, but not theologically. One must not
deprive the declaration in v. 1 of the character of a theological
principle. If one considers vs. 1-2 or 1-3 as the syntactical unit,
then the word about chaos would stand logically and temporally before
the word about creation."
and
"[1-2] One may understand v. 1 as the summary statement of everything
that is unfolded step by step in the following verses."
(Von Rad, G., "Genesis: A Commentary", Old Testament Library, SCM
Press: London, Revised Edition, 1972, pp48, 49).
I don't want to get into a protracted debate on this, and I don't
assert that Gn 1:1 definitely is an "executive summary", just that
many leading OT scholars on different sides of the theological fence
believe it is.
God bless.
Stephen
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------