Anon accepts the challenge and, finally, after 3,500 years, removes the ambiguity in God’s revelation.

For those who may have missed it, I asked Anonymous to improve God’s Word, to remedy what is obviously an ambiguity on the first page of the Bible. I say ambiguity because Anon and the Sydney Anglican Diocese have argued that Genesis 1 is not necessarily a straightforward historical list of what God did on 6 consecutive days. Rather, they take it as meaning anything but that. Strong argument and strong language [my apologies to anyone peripheral to the debate who has been sincerely hurt] have proved no help and the sides have been even more irreconcilable.

Now, in order to accomplish this Anon meshed a few sentences in Hebrew from Genesis 1 (“accidentally” written backwards!) and altered the expression ‘one day’ to ‘first day’, as well as replacing the ubiquitous and initial waw consecutive (‘and’ or ‘then’) with the expression ‘on the next day’. Thus, by his effort here Anon can now firmly boast that, as far as the original text is concerned, the days of Genesis 1 do not intend to communicate one day immediately following the previous. In other words, Anon’s proposal that there are gaps of indeterminate length between “successive” days stands beyond reproach. The upshot of this is that Genesis 1 is assuredly not an historically accurate record of God’s creating but merely a “better” piece of literature than the surrounding cultures’ cosmogenic accounts, as Anon has previously confirmed and the Sydney Anglican heretics have likewise preached from their pulpits and formulated in their written works.

Anon has further criticised the grammar point that others have made that the waw + verb construct (wayyiqtol) indicates temporal succession. He maintains that it can also indicate logical succession. I agree this is correct and can be seen, for example, in such a verse as Genesis 39:2 (“The Lord was with Joseph, and so he became a successful man”), where God being with Joseph entailed his success. However, I wish to rebut his implication that in the case of Genesis 1 it would only indicate logical succession, as though temporal considerations are non-existent or, as I suspect Anon favours, diminished in importance. Let me say immediately that once Genesis 1 is framed within the big picture, mere logical succession, set loose from ideas of close temporal succession, would reduce the passage to a triviality or, worse still, transform it into sheer nonsense. To accomplish this I need to discuss something concerning the relevant Hebrew grammar. To cut to the chase, There is an overriding reason why the writer of Genesis 1 chose both ‘yom echad’ (i.e. ‘one day’), rather than Anon’s substitution with ‘yom rishon’ (i.e. ‘first day’), and the preponderant class of verb, the wayyiqtol. Let me first offer a rejoinder to Anon’s changing ‘one day’ to ‘first day’.

Both rabbis and Christian commentators have been perplexed as to why God chose to call the first day of creation, ‘one day’, rather than the more fitting ‘first day’. When an ordinal series is being denoted, as it is with the subsequent ‘second day, third day…seventh day’, one expects the first day to be called, well, the first day. And this is exactly what these learned and ancient commentators have concluded: On the “first” day there were no other days to compare or contrast it with so it cannot rightly be called by the ordinal. It is unique and thus must be addressed by the cardinal, “one”. Let me suggest an analogy to help explain.

If you were the only person who entered a marathon race it would seem quite inappropriate, even meaningless, to say after you had crossed the finishing line, “I won the race.” It’s only when there is at least another competitor that you could rightly claim “I won.” And so it is similarly with the first day, I mean, Day 1: what other days can be put up against Day 1, on Day 1, if no others were “in the race”, so to speak? Keep this point about being “on” Day 1 in mind because it neatly dovetails with the following grammar discussion.

Biblical Hebrew (henceforth BH) is a discipline which has experienced, and continues to experience, considerable differences of opinion concerning the nature of the rules of its grammar. Like all languages, over the centuries it was spoken it changed. But unlike other languages, even dead ones, BH has few sources of evidence apart from the Bible itself. Classic Greek, though dead, has literally thousands of different extant examples e.g. inscriptions, manuscripts, quotes. Furthermore, it had its early grammarians and it became somewhat of an international language, even within the Roman Empire. BH, on the other hand, may have had early grammar works but none has survived apart from one from approximately 1000 years ago, well after BH had disappeared from it actually being a language of communication. Thus, much academic opinion and ink have been spent augmenting, criticizing, inventing, responding to, reassessing and rethinking what BH grammar rules are. The function of verbs, arguably, is where most of this activity and ink has been exhausted.

In order to understand what the writer of Genesis 1 meant when he wrote about each of the 6 days, in particular Day one, it is necessary to appreciate the difference between ‘tense’ and ‘aspect’, though there is often a complementary relationship between the two temporal systems.

Usually, though not always, in any tensed report involving action or an event, there are three components that are ordered temporally to each other so that the information can be transmitted to the reader. These are

· S, the speech time which indicates the moment of speech
· E, the event time, when the event occurred
· R, the reference time, the time that is being talked about or the temporal standpoint from which the event is considered

Take a statement relaying one of my favourite activities, “I’ve drunk 6 Little Creatures” [FYI, the best beer in the world]. As with all English tensed statements, the speech time is the present. However, in this case, the event occurred at some non-indicated time before Now, with the reference being also from the present, hence the statement utilizing the present perfect tense.

Compare this with the past perfect, “I had drunk 6 Little Creatures by the time I got stuck into a quite pleasant ’95 Grange.” As with the previous example the S time is obviously in the present and the E and R times are dissimilar, but in this case all three are distinct from each other. If you can imagine I am making that statement say at 11pm, I finished the last of the 6 beers 5 hours earlier at 6pm (E time), walked into my wine cellar, chose the Grange at 6:10 pm (it took me a few minutes to decide between the 93 and 95!), walked upstairs, took out the cork, decanted it, let it breathe for 2 hours, and then, at 8:15 pm, took my first sip of heaven in a bottle (R time).

The quality of ‘aspect’ is difficult to come to grips with because as English speakers almost our whole outlook on narrative is governed by tense i.e. this happened, then this, followed by that, usually all from the understood perspective of the present. One explanation of ‘aspect’ states that in BH “the author transports the listener/reader into the very story they are relating, inviting them to become almost an eyewitness of the events in the story. As the listener/reader experiences the story, they are beckoned to follow the action dynamically, rather than observe it passively from the present…tense is of little importance, and is merely a by-product of the narrative perspective, rather than a governing concept.” (Athas, G. & Young, I., Elementary Biblical Hebrew, 2007, p. 55.)

Another writes:

“Although both aspect and tense are concerned with time, they are concerned with time in very different ways…[T]ense is a deictic category, i.e. locates situations in time, usually with reference to the present moment, though also with reference to other situations. Aspect is not concerned with relating the time of the situation to any other time-point, but rather with the internal temporal constituency of the one situation; one could state the difference as one between situation-internal time (aspect) and situation-external time (tense).” (Comrie, B., Aspect, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 5.)

So how does this relate to Anon’s contention that he can slip in a ‘first day’ to the Genesis 1 text and believe that he has improved upon God’s Spirit’s effort?

Let me make the bold claim that I believe Anon is wrong. Furthermore, let me stick my neck out and make another “bold” claim that I think God got his language and grammar here exactly right. Genesis 1:3-5’s use of a series of wayyiqtol verbs brings the reader to that initial action using it as a reference point, a springboard so to speak, to participate in the subsequent actions by God. Rather than looking from afar (e.g. the present time of when one is reading the text), the wayyiqtol “creates a new narrative reference point, and therefore beckons the reader/listener to progress to it…[and] conveys a progressive action.” (Elementary Biblical Grammar, p. 94.) Thus, if we are invited into the biblical narrative and this narrative is dynamic, then we are there, with God, on that first day. And this is the point, there is no first day. A first day would only be correct if Hebrew were like English and was primarily a tensed language and the text was grammatically arranged in the past/present perfect or simple past, as Hebrew was once believed to be. How could it be true that if you are in Day 1 you could meaningfully use an expression that connotes other days were already in existence if, yet, there really were no other days? For Anon to think he can just alter God’s Word and replace ‘yom echad’ with ‘yom rishon’ belies what is actually happening in the text as supported by BH grammar and specifically the nature of aspect.

Now, let’s move onto the main class of Hebrew verb used in Genesis 1.

Anon wishes us to believe that the idea of temporal succession, as manifested by the overwhelming use of wayyiqtol verbs (waw consecutive + verb), is now passé, or in the very least, no longer the main constituent of this verb’s function. That is, this type of verb has no inherent capacity to generate, particularly if used rapidly and extensively (as it is in Genesis 1), any idea of temporal, limited, succession. This argument, even among recent scholars who have strongly reacted against the older claims of Hebrew being primarily a tensed language, is not something that carries much weight. The problems are complex and no single rule fits all cases. Now, it is true that occasionally there is a wayyiqtol which does not indicate the next action in time, however, as Athas et al argue, “it is close to the true function of the waw prefix.” (p. 100.) Anon’s apparent throwing the baby out with the bath water is not a worthwhile or efficacious pursuit.

Wayyiqtol verbs are rare in poetry and dialogue; they are however the defining feature of Hebrew narratives and convey a progressive action. They are usually translated in English as the simple past tense (e.g. God said, made etc), but, as previously explained, “attract the reader/listener to this new action, thus overcoming the initial distance.” (see Athas, p. 94ff and 100.) Concluding his work on this subject, Goldfajn states the following: “[T]he principle for the temporal interpretation of wayyiqtol should specify that the main temporal function of this form is to express temporal continuity…[T]he prefixed form wayyiqtol operate[s] as explicit temporal anaphors, in the sense that [it] takes [its] temporal reference from an antecedent event. Wayyiqtol…seem[s] to be saying ‘after that’, where ‘that’ refers back to the last event narrated…the ‘after that’ of the wayyiqtol form refers to past events. Thus wayyiqtol…has the temporal value of posteriority. Furthermore, it mainly indicates that bounded events followed each other continuously in the past of either some explicit speech time or a context-specified. Traditionally, reference grammars…for example, describe the function of wayyiqtol as that of expressing ‘actions, events, or states which are to be regarded as the temporal or logical sequence of actions, events or states mentioned immediately before’. This description is of course in accord with the principle proposed above.” (Goldfajn, T., Word Order and Time in Biblical Hebrew Narrative, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998, p. 143.)

Now this last statement neatly segues to a rebuttal against those who maintain that the seventh day, because there is no final ‘evening and morning’, is open ended. In other words, the spiritual sense of the Sabbath annuls any historical reality to the seventh day just because of the absence of this one temporal marker (now, that’s what I do call a non sequitur!). Since I am presently discussing the wayyiqtol verb and its importance to temporal succession, it should be noted that in Genesis 2:2-3 all the relevant verbs are wayyiqtol i.e. “God ended”, “God rested”, “God blessed”. One writer specifically comments about this function of wayyiqtol verbs: “[A]ctivities and states…when expressed by wayyiqtols…come across as telic, not in the sense that there was a final goal or achievement that was reached but simply that some event or state was terminated [and] the clear sequential interpretation triggered by wayyiqtols in the biblical Hebrew text is closely connected with the fact that the wayyiqtol form represents situations which include their end points.” (Goldfajn, p.71.)

So what of Anon’s main thesis that there are gaps between each of the days? By promoting that there are, Genesis 1 becomes indistinguishable from the pagan myths and folk tales, the very literature that it is supposed to assail, at least according to the promoters of a non-historical Genesis 1. By deracinating the Genesis 1 narrative from real time Anon and his colleagues have demonstrated a singular ignorance of what makes Jewish writing so unique, that of being inextricably tied to the temporal. From the beginning (in and of what?) of the first page, through the prophets (“Now it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah…that this word came to Jeremiah from the Lord…”), to Jesus (“Now in the morning…”, “And again he entered Capernaum after some days…”, “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham….”, “And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus…This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria…”, “Then came the Day of Unleavened Bread….”, “The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him…”), even to Revelation (“The Revelation of Jesus Christ…things which must shortly take place” ), real time, even measurable time, is the key.

Notwithstanding this, what exactly would Genesis 1 mean if it were an exception to temporality being the quintessential mark of Hebrew thought and narrative and that there were gaps of unknown and unknowable length? I suggest Genesis 1 would signify everything and thus nothing at all. It would have no connection whatsoever with the real events of the beginning. That is, what Genesis said happened and what actually happened in real time and space would be completely different. For example, imagine for a moment a world where plants appeared on the third day, then months, years, even millennia, passed by, then at some unknown point of no significance the sun was created on the “fourth” day. Anon labels this interpretation, logical. For the life of me I cannot begin to sense how ‘logical’ is apposite. In fact, I’m of a mind to say that these putative gaps, no matter what their length, render Genesis 1 nonsense on the same level as a poor farmer’s son planting magical beans and the stalk growing up to a kingdom in the sky where a giant lives.

Quite possibly all Anon is indicating by his attribution of logical succession to the wayyiqtol verbs is that God’s saying, etc, actualizes each of the commands of God and that it is these which form the logical necessity. But even if so, why would you include such strict, limiting temporal markers as ‘an evening and a morning’ and ‘day + ordinal’?

So this raises important questions: On what basis would Anon’s innovative gap theory be an improvement on the pagan stories of creation which all refrain from including temporal markers? [Anon STILL hasn’t furnished any example of a pagan myth which has anything like the Genesis 1 chronology!] What extra true information does a “pseudo-chronology” provide that not including it, as all pagan mythological tales do, would omit?

On top of all the arguments I’ve used up until now that mitigate against Genesis 1 being taken for anything but an historical record, there is a commonsense notion that seems to have been overlooked by Anon. Whatever may be felt to be missing in Genesis 1, it isn’t as though the text is all we have as readers. As intelligent creatures we value commonsense; however, come to Genesis 1 and all notion of wisdom and intellect seems to vanish. Sternberg makes the valuable point that one of the literary devices used in all narratives, Hebrew or otherwise, is that the writer, for effect and in order to draw in the reader, purposely creates informational gaps for the reader to fill in. However, to argue that the details of Genesis 1 signal gaps between the days strains well beyond the limits of sound thinking. By doing so, in addition to eschewing a commonsense reading, Anon and his supporters ignore all the patent signs that tell us that there are no gaps and that Genesis 1 is a chronological list of what occurred in the very first week of the cosmos. Sternberg goes on to say, “To emphasize the active role played by the reader in constructing the world of a literary work is by no means to imply that gap-filling is an arbitrary process. On the contrary, in this as in other operations of reading, literature is remarkable for its powers of control and validation. Of course, gap-filling may nevertheless be performed in a wild or misguided or tendentious fashion, and there is no lack of evidence for this in criticism ancient and modern. But to gain cogency, a hypothesis must be legitimated by the text. Illegitimate gap-filling is one launched and sustained by the reader’s subjective concerns (or dictated by more general preconceptions [i.e. the age of the Earth!]) rather than by the text’s own norms and directives.” (Sternberg, M., The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1985, p. 188.)

One further comment about commonsense. Given the inclusion of the unambiguous temporal markers of ‘day + ordinal’ as well as the content of Genesis 1’s days, strict chronological temporal succession appears to be the most rational conclusion. After all, if the writer has, as it appears he has, gone to an enormous length to include an inordinate amount of temporal information, and yet wants to disavow the temporal succession, why would he not just have written a less complex statement of God’s activity and eschewed the whole time aspect?

Rather than throwing up his quite obviously tendentious and ad hoc “solution” to the question I posed, as though his case were proved beyond any doubt, Anon should have evinced a sense of academic responsibility by, in the very least, providing a statistical analysis of whether his “correction” to God’s Word actually was commensurate with other like passages. That is, is ‘on the next day’ the usual expression incorporated in extended lists that resemble Genesis 1? I for one would like to know if it is an appropriate expression, that it isn’t anachronistic or that it doesn’t turn what would be normally considered as unencumbered, aesthetically pleasing BH narrative into a stilted and forced set of lines, replete with superfluities.

Anon’s task of “correcting” God’s Word, is no small task. Of course, he could, as he has done before, accuse me of begging the question by taking as the default position that Genesis 1 is a record of a series of historical, sequential acts over six 24 hour periods. Of course he could! But seeing as that his, in addition to the Framework Hypothesis, Day-Age Theory, Gap Theory etc, is nothing more than a Johnny-Come-Lately idea which unconsciously or dishonestly tries to accommodate the assumed great age of the earth, this fact in and of itself exculpates me from the charge of question-begging. After all, some traditions, particularly those that involve truth, really do set you free.