Hebrew 'the' and 'a'

[Freedom]

my understanding is that the definitive article we translate as 'the' shows up as a prefix for a word, transliterated as 'ha'. So if 'ha' is not present, we would use 'a' rather than 'the'.

Someone sent me a youtube video where the poster stated that Genesis 1:1 does not have this prefix which means it should be translated as 'in a beginning'. The Masoretic text of the Leningrad codex does not have the prefix, but the Samaritan Pentateuch does have it. I have a translation where it is rendered 'beginning of when God created' which suggests that 'the' is not required to denote that it is referring to a specific creation. Of course, the text is liturgical and it  meant to teach a doctrine rather than history so it is quite irrelevant. But just looking for some insights. 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Freedom said:

my understanding is that the definitive article we translate as 'the' shows up as a prefix for a word, transliterated as 'ha'. So if 'ha' is not present, we would use 'a' rather than 'the'.

Someone sent me a youtube video where the poster stated that Genesis 1:1 does not have this prefix which means it should be translated as 'in a beginning'. The Masoretic text of the Leningrad codex does not have the prefix, but the Samaritan Pentateuch does have it. I have a translation where it is rendered 'beginning of when God created' which suggests that 'the' is not required to denote that it is referring to a specific creation. Of course, the text is liturgical and it  meant to teach a doctrine rather than history so it is quite irrelevant. .....................

It is true that the Samaritan Pentateuch in consonantal script is read by the Samaritan High Priest at Gen 1:1 barashet as though the first letter, the preposition b- "when, in" included the vowel of the definite article ha-.  However, that doesn't make any difference in the translation, since Gen 1:1-2 is a series of dependent conditional clauses leading up the main clause at Gen 1:3.  That was not understood by the KJV and prior translators, so that they invariably began with something like "In the beginning," when the proper translation should have been:

Quote

When the Gods organized the heavens and the earth,

the earth being without form and void,

and darkness upon the face of the abyss,

and the spirit of the Gods sweeping over the waters,

the Gods said "Let there be light!" and there was light.  (cf. E. Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible 1)

That the plural translation "Gods" was originally intended is clear from Gen 1:26, where the Gods refer to themselves in the plural.  The text has been deliberately changed through time to fit later theological demands.  Joseph Smith understood that and so provided some key insights into that passage in his 1844 King Follett Funeral Oration, a feature which which we also see in the Book of Abraham.

Edited September 13, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[Freedom]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is true that the Samaritan Pentateuch in consonantal script is read by the Samaritan High Priest at Gen 1:1 barashet as though the first letter, the preposition b- "when, in" included the vowel of the definite article ha-.  However, that doesn't make any difference in the translation, since Gen 1:1-2 is a series of dependent conditional clauses leading up the main clause at Gen 1:3.  That was not understood by the KJV and prior translators, so that they invariably began with something like "In the beginning," when the proper translation should have been:

That the plural translation "Gods" was originally intended is clear from Gen 1:26, where the Gods refer to themselves in the plural.  The text has been deliberately changed through time to fit later theological demands.  Joseph Smith understood that and so provided some key insights into that passage in his 1844 King Follett Funeral Oration, a feature which which we also see in the Book of Abraham.

thanks. but ultimately whether it is rendered a beginning or the beginning (be both ever so incorrect) is doctrinally irrelevant to the intended message that the story is about the gods organizing a sacred  place for his children to dwell. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Freedom said:

thanks. but ultimately whether it is rendered a beginning or the beginning (be both ever so incorrect) is doctrinally irrelevant to the intended message that the story is about the gods organizing a sacred  place for his children to dwell. 

Yes, and Anglican Bishop N. T. Wright agrees that the Creation and Garden Story is "a temple story." 

 

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and Anglican Bishop N. T. Wright agrees that the Creation and Garden Story is "a temple story." 

 

Fabulous video that applies to all scripture! Thanks Bob!

It should be a requirement for everyone to watch this video before they can write comments on this board!! 

[Freedom]

On 9/13/2021 at 12:34 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and Anglican Bishop N. T. Wright agrees that the Creation and Garden Story is "a temple story." 

 

Yes, good example. It is a complex combination of proper translation and cultural understanding of the intended audience 

[Dan McClellan]

On 9/12/2021 at 6:11 PM, Freedom said:

my understanding is that the definitive article we translate as 'the' shows up as a prefix for a word, transliterated as 'ha'. So if 'ha' is not present, we would use 'a' rather than 'the'.

Someone sent me a youtube video where the poster stated that Genesis 1:1 does not have this prefix which means it should be translated as 'in a beginning'. The Masoretic text of the Leningrad codex does not have the prefix, but the Samaritan Pentateuch does have it. I have a translation where it is rendered 'beginning of when God created' which suggests that 'the' is not required to denote that it is referring to a specific creation. Of course, the text is liturgical and it  meant to teach a doctrine rather than history so it is quite irrelevant. But just looking for some insights. 

 

There is no definite article in the Hebrew b'reishit, so the word on its own would be indefinite. However, an indefinite word with the bet prefix is likely in construct with what followings, meaning it is in a genitive relationship with what follows. Normally, what would follow in the second part of a construct would be a noun, but verbal clauses, even those unmarked by relative pronouns, can occur in the second part of a construct phrase. In a construct phrase, the first part does not carry a definite article, but adopts the definiteness of the second part of the phrase. So if the second part is definite, the first part is too, even without the definite article. So, if we interpret b'reishit as indefinite and in construct with "God created the heavens and the earth," the whole verse would be rendered, "In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth . . ." It would then need to be followed by the main clause of the sentence, since this construct phrase does not act as a main clause. This whole construct phrase would also best be interpreted as a temporal clause, which would be more idiomatically rendered in English, "When God began to create the heavens and the earth . . ." Verse 2 could function as the main clause, giving us, "When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was desolate and barren." Genesis 1:1–2 would thus describe the state of the earth at the beginning of God's creative act. It would not refer to an absolute beginning, but to a relative one: the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth.