tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18229243.post423938207637667012..comments2023-12-18T07:22:54.250-06:00Comments on Idle musings of a bookseller: Beginnings-againjpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017353888045816159noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18229243.post-66711155425100398892011-12-30T15:22:45.055-06:002011-12-30T15:22:45.055-06:00Edward,
I noticed that you made the same comment ...Edward,<br /><br />I noticed that you made the same comment on Peter's blog. I would take a somewhat different tact: The LXX took it as a prepositional clause and translated it Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν. So, already by the third/second century BCE, it was being translated the way most modern English translations do.<br /><br />Now, you can argue that wasn't the jpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017353888045816159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18229243.post-14678427104383042262011-12-23T07:06:38.951-06:002011-12-23T07:06:38.951-06:00One of the world's foremost experts on the mea...One of the world's foremost experts on the meaning of Genesis chapter one in its ancient Near Eastern environment is Mark Smith. In his book, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1, he explains (keep in mind I have only cited a few passages, not including his extensive endnotes):<br /><br />"It is the relative clause that makes 'in beginning' definite in the NRSV and NAB translations, Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18229243.post-11129977005088143892011-11-11T07:53:07.762-06:002011-11-11T07:53:07.762-06:00Rob,
I doubt I will post enough that you can avoi...Rob,<br /><br />I doubt I will post enough that you can avoid buying the book :)<br /><br />Jamesjpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017353888045816159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18229243.post-2539905188921243342011-11-10T21:44:48.465-06:002011-11-10T21:44:48.465-06:00James,
By the way, John Sailhammer was the first ...James,<br /><br />By the way, John Sailhammer was the first to make the argument about ראשׁית not referring to a "point" in time but a "period". I don't know if Walton mentions Sailhammer's argument or not (since I don't have Walton's book yet), but it's a good analysis.<br /><br />I generally like Walton's interpretation of Gen 1. You know, if you Robert Holmstedthttp://ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com