Gen 1:2 LXX significance of δὲ

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Gen. 1:1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν. 2 ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος, καὶ σκότος ἐπάνω τῆς ἀβύσσου, καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος. 3 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Γενηθήτω φῶς. καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς.

Why δὲ in ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ... but καὶ σκότος and καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ? The waw + [article] noun in the the assumed vorlage where the only difference is the presence or absence of the article.

The background for this question is syntax analysis of Gen 1:1-3. I had a question sent to me today asking if the syntax of the LXX supported the "gap theory" — the short answer is NO. The long answer is complicated by the fact that the LXX uses δὲ and καὶ here for waw + noun.

[Paul Derouda]

Why δὲ in ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ... but καὶ σκότος and καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ? The waw + [article] noun in the the assumed vorlage where the only difference is the presence or absence of the article.

This is just how I see it.

δὲ introduces a new idea here, it prepares the next development in the narrative; it implies some sort of contrast, although the English word "but" would be too strong in this case. καὶ in καὶ σκότος and καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ is different, it amplifies ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος without being contrastive or bringing/preparing a new development; if you replaced καὶ with δὲ, it would change the meaning and bring in a much stronger contrast "but darkness was above the abyss", "darkness, on the other hand, was above the abyss".

However, I think you could change ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος to καὶ ἡ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος or καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός to ὁ δὲ θεός εἶπεν without much changing the meaning. καὶ in καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός is, in my opinion, quite similar to δὲ in ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν, in that both introduce a new idea. So we have two sorts of καὶ here, one that introduces a new idea and another that just amplifies. But between the καὶ that introduces a new idea and the δὲ that introduces a new idea, perhaps there is a slight difference in that the καὶ is the one that is less loosely connected with what precedes than δὲ; it seems to me that δὲ (by way of contrast) more than καὶ introduces an idea that directly follows from whatever just precedes it. It occured to me after a quick Google search on "gap theory" that for me it's easier to imagine millions of years passing before a καὶ than before a δὲ, although all in all this theory seems far-fetched to me and far from anything the author of the text could ever have had in mind. But if you really had to cram in a million years, it would be before a new idea introduced by καὶ, not δὲ.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Why δὲ in ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ... but καὶ σκότος and καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ? The waw + [article] noun in the the assumed vorlage where the only difference is the presence or absence of the article.

This is just how I see it.

δὲ introduces a new idea here, it prepares the next development in the narrative; it implies some sort of contrast, although the English word "but" would be too strong in this case. καὶ in καὶ σκότος and καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ is different, it amplifies ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος without being contrastive or bringing/preparing a new development; if you replaced καὶ with δὲ, it would change the meaning and bring in a much stronger contrast "but darkness was above the abyss", "darkness, on the other hand, was above the abyss".

Paul,

You have explained this much more clearly than text-linguists I have read on DE/KAI. So the δὲ doesn't simply attach the next event in a linear narrative sequence. It highlights a new development and the following καὶ … καὶ … attach details of this new development.

[Markos]

Hi, Clayton and Paul,

I note that 1:2 is the only δέ in Genesis until 2:6. Before that, you just have a string of καί's answering to the Hebrew waw's. After that, at some point, you find a mixture of καί's and δέ's which may or may not follow Greek usage. Not sure about variant readings.

[Paul Derouda]

Paul,

You have explained this much more clearly than text-linguists I have read on DE/KAI. So the δὲ doesn't simply attach the next event in a linear narrative sequence. It highlights a new development and the following καὶ … καὶ … attach details of this new development.

It's nice of you to say so, but don't trust me too much! I think "highlights a new development" is well said. But I think the trickiest part here is the exact difference between δὲ in ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος and καὶ in καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός (a different sort of καὶ than the two others...) – as far I see they are interchangeable, but still not quite the same...

With Markos I agree that knowing the Hebrew text might well explain a thing or two in the Greek text.

[Qimmik]

It seems to me that δέ dramatically sets off the preceding sentence, increasing its weight and substance and solemnity, as well as launching the ensuing narrative, which is driven along by καί's.

To capture the effect of the Greek in translation, I would suggest starting a new paragraph with verse 2, and translating δέ as "now":

"In the beginning god made the sky and the earth.

"Now the earth was unseeable and unordered, and darkness was over the abyss, and the breath of god floated over the water. And god said, let light be brought into existence, and light came into existence. . . . "

[uberdwayne]

My 2 cents, and it really is two cents...

Perhaps the translators of the Septuagint saw this first sentence as an introduction to everything that would come up after it. This would make sense as "de" often marks new development (according to Runge) and why the conjunctive waw was translated differently in this sentence. We would have the rest of the creation account as the next logical development explaining how exactly God created all things. Perhaps the sense of the first verse is: "This is the beginning account of when God Created the heaven and the Earth"

Does this make sense, or did I miss it altogether?

[mwh]

I’m largely in accord with what others have written. Just a few quick additional or reinforcing thoughts.

As I see it, the de here is simply an accommodation to the norms of Greek usage. The LXX translators did sometimes do that, didn’t they, rather than just going waw waw waw.

kai is just “and” (except when it’s not, of course), linking things it formally puts on an equal footing. de, on the other hand, while it too establishes a connexion with what precedes, leaves the nature of the relationship undefined and unspecific. What it introduces has a greater degree of separation from what precedes it than is the case with και. In itself it’s a colorless connective, dependent on its surroundings for shades of meaning.

In a string of kai’s the differential punctuation (as here between the v.2 ones and the v.3 ones) is arbitrarily imposed on an undifferentiated chain of identically conjoined clauses. They should be punctuated identically or better (since kai does the job of articulating) not at all.

The Greek is completely irrelevant anyhow, since all it reflects is how the translators chose to render the Hebrew; unless they were divinely inspired, I suppose. Only the Hebrew counts.

There’s no way the particles can properly be put to use either in support of the gap theory or against it. (The only kind of particles that might be of use are those of particle physics.)

There’s nothing whatever to indicate the time interval (if any) between the events described in the successive clauses.

[jaihare]

Hi, Clayton and Paul,

I note that 1:2 is the only δέ in Genesis until 2:6. Before that, you just have a string of καί's answering to the Hebrew waw's. After that, at some point, you find a mixture of καί's and δέ's which may or may not follow Greek usage. Not sure about variant readings.

Indeed, this use of καί is very Semitic and represents translational Greek. It isn't natural to Greek on its own. Can you imagine if this were any other Greek author and he had done this in his writing? It's as unnatural to Greek to use καί... καί... as "and it came to pass that... and it came to pass that..." sounds in the Book of Mormon. Does this prove that the Book of Mormon is translation English? (Rhetorical, of course. Please, let's not turn this into a discussion of the Book of Mormon. I'm just remarking about the use of καί and how it compares to English.)

[mwh]

Actually it sounds a lot like Mark.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Paul,

You have explained this much more clearly than text-linguists I have read on DE/KAI. So the δὲ doesn't simply attach the next event in a linear narrative sequence. It highlights a new development and the following καὶ … καὶ … attach details of this new development.

It's nice of you to say so, but don't trust me too much! I think "highlights a new development" is well said. But I think the trickiest part here is the exact difference between δὲ in ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος and καὶ in καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός (a different sort of καὶ than the two others...) – as far I see they are interchangeable, but still not quite the same...

Paul,

I reviewed what the text-linguists had to say about it and all the commentaries I have on the Hebrew text. John Wevers' note on the LXX of Gen. 1:2 simply states that δὲ can be read as contrastive or introducing a clause with a different subject than the last clause. Levinsohn (2000, p71ff) talks about δὲ introducing "new development" but then dilutes it by adding a long list of qualifications — "nuancing it to death" … (Ken Litwak b-greek). The main point pertinent to the traditional Gap Theory is that hebrew clause initial waw+noun in verse two would a waw+finite verb if this were simply a consecutive linear narrative. The LXX δὲ isn't incompatible with consecutive linear narrative but it does suggest an interruption of some sort to the storyline begun in verse one. How significant an interruption isn't easy to nail down. I am assuming here that verse one in Hebrew is an independent sentence which is what the LXX indicates. Verse two is subject to various readings but δὲ isn't the lynch pin.

The LXX of Genesis is our earliest commentary on the hebrew text and is immensely important to textural criticism and exegesis of the Hebrew, see several standard reference works by Emanuel Tov.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

My 2 cents, and it really is two cents...

Perhaps the translators of the Septuagint saw this first sentence as an introduction to everything that would come up after it. This would make sense as "de" often marks new development (according to Runge) and why the conjunctive waw was translated differently in this sentence. We would have the rest of the creation account as the next logical development explaining how exactly God created all things. Perhaps the sense of the first verse is: "This is the beginning account of when God Created the heaven and the Earth"

Does this make sense, or did I miss it altogether?

Yes it makes sense. It is in fact one of the four major proposals on the exegesis and syntax of Gen 1:1-3.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Indeed, this use of καί is very Semitic and represents translational Greek. It isn't natural to Greek on its own.

Which is why the LXX isn't such a good learning tool for new Greek students. The LXX of Genesis can be a good crib for understanding hebrew but as greek goes it is strange, not as strange is some other greek versions however (e.g, Aquila). Jason do we have Aquila's rendering of Gen 1:1-3? Was not able to track it down.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

It seems to me that δέ dramatically sets off the preceding sentence, increasing its weight and substance and solemnity, as well as launching the ensuing narrative, which is driven along by καί's.

To capture the effect of the Greek in translation, I would suggest starting a new paragraph with verse 2, and translating δέ as "now":

"In the beginning god made the sky and the earth.

"Now the earth was unseeable and unordered, and darkness was over the abyss, and the breath of god floated over the water. And god said, let light be brought into existence, and light came into existence. . . . "

I am not sure if dramatic accurately reflects the significance of δέ in LXX and NT koine narrative. I suspect from my reading that δέ does qualify as "marked" since καί is ubiquitous in the LXX but there are degrees of markedness and I don't think the linguists I am reading consider it "shockingly" significant. There are something like 855 occurrences of δέ in Genesis LXX and 3070 καί. Markedness is of course not simply a matter of statistics.

On the other hand I agree that it sets of the first sentence. It isn't just a continuous narrative. The second verse is a new unit of thought and δέ introduces the new unit. The following καὶ σκότος ἐπάνω τῆς ἀβύσσου, καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος. develop that unit. The greek looks like the Hebrew waw+noun. The part that is interesting is the waw that switches to a new unit is rendered by δέ where as the waw's that develop that new unit are rendered by καὶ.

[Paul Derouda]

Actually it sounds a lot like Mark.

From the day I first set my eyes on its Greek text, my nickname for Mark has been the Kai Gospel...!

[mwh]

Aquila's version. A google search for “hexapla text” throws up https://archive.org/details/origenhexapla01unknuoft, a 19th cent. edition by Frederick Field. If I’m right in assuming that Ἀ. stands for Ἀκύλας , then Aquila’s rendering of Gen.1.1-3 ran (I type out what Fields prints for each verse):
(1) ἐν κεφαλαίῳ ἔκτισεν ὁ θεὸς σὺν τὸν οὐρανὸν σὺν τὴν γῆν. ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν κένωμα καὶ οὐθέν. (2) καὶ σκότος ἐπὶ πρόσωπον ἀβύσσου, καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἐπιφερόμενον ἐπὶ πρόσωπον ὑδάτων. (3) γενέσθω φῶς· καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς.
Very interesting. And I never knew that the written Torah doesn’t mention God in 3. (I'm inferring that's the case.)

Here’s something else a very quick search turned up:
https://archive.org/stream/aquilasgreek ... h_djvu.txt
which includes remarks on Aquila's indebtedness to Akiba and the importance of particles in rabbinical hermeneutics (the particles in question being those rendered ungrammatically by σύν, however, rather than δε/και).

Incidentally, how can there possibly be “four major proposals” on the syntax?!
EDIT: I do see one possible question: whether to understand ἧν with σκοτος or to apply επεφερετο to it. And I suppose there could be any number of questions about word order and (non-)articles. But do any of them impinge on the Hebrew?

[Qimmik]

And I never knew that the written Torah doesn’t mention God in 3.

The Hebrew text does, at least the standard Masoretic text and apparently the text on which the LXX was based.

σὺν τὸν οὐρανὸν σὺν τὴν γῆν

There are two prepositions in Hebrew, one which marks the direct object and one meaning "with," which are homophones when combined with a noun: אֶת־. Other forms (e.g., combined with personal pronoun suffixes) differ as to their vowels (at least in the traditional system of vocalization), so these are indeed two different words. But I think most forms in an unpointed text (i.e., without the diacritical marks indicating vowels) look exactly the same.

This translator must have been working from an unpointed text, as any text before the 8th or 9th century CE (when the systems of vocalization were developed) would be, and as Torah scroll used in synagogues and most other Hebrew texts are today (except texts of the Tanakh in codex form and prayerbooks and texts aimed at beginners). Oddly, the translator seems to be confusing the direct object marker for the preposition meaning "with" (as I did recently in another thread, to my chagrin). That explains why the nouns are accusative.

[mwh]

Seems like you were in good (bad?) company, then.

I'm puzzled by v.3. All the hexapla translators plunge straight into "let there be light," if I read Field correctly. Perhaps I didn't.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Aquila's version. A google search for “hexapla text” throws up https://archive.org/details/origenhexapla01unknuoft, a 19th cent. edition by Frederick Field. If I’m right in assuming that Ἀ. stands for Ἀκύλας , then Aquila’s rendering of Gen.1.1-3 ran (I type out what Fields prints for each verse):
(1) ἐν κεφαλαίῳ ἔκτισεν ὁ θεὸς σὺν τὸν οὐρανὸν σὺν τὴν γῆν. ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν κένωμα καὶ οὐθέν. (2) καὶ σκότος ἐπὶ πρόσωπον ἀβύσσου, καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἐπιφερόμενον ἐπὶ πρόσωπον ὑδάτων. (3) γενέσθω φῶς· καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς.

oh good, just what I was looking for ... I kept seeing Frederick Field mentioned but had not tracked it down because I assumed Aquila Genesis was not extant. The accusative particle את rendered as σὺν is one of Aquila's trademarks. More interesting is his rendering of the infamously diffiuclt תהו ובהו tohu waw bohu in verse two as κένωμα καὶ οὐθέν whereas Jeramiah 4:23 LXX renders whole expression תהו ובהו οὐθέν:

Jer. 4:23 ἐπέβλεψα ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, καὶ ἰδοὺ οὐθέν, καὶ εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ οὐκ ἦν τὰ φῶτα αὐτοῦ·

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Incidentally, how can there possibly be “four major proposals” on the syntax?!

Hebrew syntax, not greek. Waltke (Creation and Chaos 1974) gives three or more proposals, depends on how you break down Gen 1:1-3. Gorden Wenham (Genesis, WBC) gives four. There are probably a dozen proposals or more if you look at all the permutations which is why the word MAJOR is used. Waltke gave this series of lectures two months before I arrived where the lectures were delivered (not Dallas btw). I remember tohu waw bohu as kind of a joke going around. In the early 90s I had several discussions with a hebrew scholar who had studied the language in the classics dept of a secular university before attending seminary and he sat in on the lectures and had serious issues with Waltke's exegesis of Gen 1:1-3. Never the less, the intro lecture on ancient near-eastern cosmic combat themes in creation myths has a certain flavor of W. F. Albright and Frank M. Cross (Harvard) who was Waltke's doktorvater. That was the part of the lectureship that caught and held my interest for four decades. I traced it back through F. M. Cross, Herman Gunkel, Mary K. Wakeman (sp?), John Day, J. J. Collins, Bernhard Anderson and others.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

(3) γενέσθω φῶς· καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς.
Very interesting. And I never knew that the written Torah doesn’t mention God in 3. (I'm inferring that's the case.)

After looking at how Frederick Field handles the other versions, I think the problem arises because the editor is presenting only the portion of the verse where there is a variation unit.

[mwh]

Many thanks for all the elucidations. As you can no doubt tell, I have almost no Hebrew.

[Markos]

Aquila's version. A google search for “hexapla text” throws up https://archive.org/details/origenhexapla01unknuoft, a 19th cent. edition by Frederick Field. If I’m right in assuming that Ἀ. stands for Ἀκύλας , then Aquila’s rendering of Gen.1.1-3 ran (I type out what Fields prints for each verse):
(1) ἐν κεφαλαίῳ ἔκτισεν ὁ θεὸς σὺν τὸν οὐρανὸν σὺν τὴν γῆν. ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν κένωμα καὶ οὐθέν. (2) καὶ σκότος ἐπὶ πρόσωπον ἀβύσσου, καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἐπιφερόμενον ἐπὶ πρόσωπον ὑδάτων.

ὦ χαῖρε, φίλε μωΗ,

I do find it ἀξιόλογον that not only Aquila, but also Theodotion and Symmachus, have the δέ here. On the other hand, Aquila does not have δέ where the LXX next has it.

LXX Gen 2:6: πηγὴ δὲ ἀνέβαινεν ἐκ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἐπότισε πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς.

Aquila Gen 2:6: καὶ ἐπιβλυσμὸς ἀνέβη ἐκ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἐπότισε πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς χθονός.

I also wonder what Paul D. would make of the tenses here.

... I have almost no Hebrew.

οὐδεὶς τέλειός ἐστιν!

[Paul Derouda]

LXX Gen 2:6: πηγὴ δὲ ἀνέβαινεν ἐκ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἐπότισε πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς.

Aquila Gen 2:6: καὶ ἐπιβλυσμὸς ἀνέβη ἐκ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἐπότισε πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς χθονός.

I also wonder what Paul D. would make of the tenses here.

Ha, you're teasing me... I don't think there's much of a difference. Imperfects are often used when an event is the starting point of something, like ἔπεμπε, or speech introductions, or when you want to say "got going". Here the idea of the imperfect might also be something like "and lo, there was a source springing forth out from the earth", i.e. the imperfect has a sort of dramatic immediate effect, while the aorist version would be more like "a source burst out of the earth". Something like that, I don't know if it's really as big a difference as these English paraphrases of mine imply...