Gen 1:1 aleph tav

A comment (se below) was posted on the RevInt IV: Reverse Interlinear article on the Logos web page. I find his staement interresting but since I am not schooled in the Biblical languages I am finding hard research this statement.

Could I get some help with how to follow this logic using Logos?

Thanking you in advance for your help.

RevInt IV: Reverse Interlinear comment 2.

Ferdie Bayot | June 28, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply

The reason aleph tav in gen 1:1 is left untranslated is because that is the name of Jesus or His signature in the OT. It is also the equivalent of alpha and omega in the greek. therefore here is a clear proof of Jesus' pre-existence even before creation.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ben

That's a theological interpretation, not a linguistic one. It seems fairly ignorant of the actual linguistic reason.

The real reason aleph-tav isn't translated is because it marks definite direct objects in Hebrew, and English has no formal equivalent. We mark our direct objects by putting them directly after the verb e.g. I [subject] fed [verb] the dog [definite direct object.] We know "the dog" is the object, because it comes after the verb. Hebrew is more flexible with its sentence structure, and tends to mark the definite direct objects that way.

It's true, however, that Aleph-Tav are the Hebrew equivalent of Gr. Alpha-Omega and English A-Z.

Garcia

thanks for prompt reply. looked at few dictionaries and explainations of this word and could not really connect the statement with the definitions.

However I still found it an interesting statement.

Now it makes sense aleph-tav = alpha-omega. I guess it take quite a study to find Jesus as the subject everywhere A-T occurs.

Thanks Again.

Robert Pavich

Interesting stuff...thanks for asking, and thanks for answering!

Rosie Perera

It's true, however, that Aleph-Tav are the Hebrew equivalent of Gr. Alpha-Omega and English A-Z.

That is true, but deriving some theological significance from the fact that there happens to be a word in the Hebrew language that is spelled with the first and last letters of its alphabet is kind of like saying that the state of Arizona encompasses all of reality because its abbreviation is AZ. It might fuel interesting speculation, but I wouldn't put a huge amount of weight on it. However, when the Greek letters alpha and omega are referred to as separate letters, as in "I am the Alpha and the Omega" -- there it's quite clear an intentional point is being made.

Ben

Agreed Rosie. I try to counterbalance my own tendencies (i.e. this kind of ignorant theologizing transforms me into a mental Incredible Hulk wanting to SMASH) and often end up overcompensating and soft-pedaling. I ask myself, what if this person has misplacedly put some of their faith in Christ on this? Or, to draw a medical analogy, how do I remove the sickness without killing the patient?

[:)]

MJ. Smith

deriving some theological significance from the fact that there happens to be a word in the Hebrew language that is spelled with the first and last letters of its alphabet is kind of like saying that the state of Arizona encompasses all of reality because its abbreviation is AZ.

Actually that kind of "word-play" was very common in Rabbinic interpretation - probably very familiar to Paul. One first has to understand that Hebrew can be interpreted very differently than other languages because Hebrew is the language of God. Everything came into being through Hebrew. In addition, rabbinic interpretation also attributes a superabundance of meaning to the text - the "plain meaning" of the text is in Jewish interpretation a post-diaspora technique.

Now I wish there were a rabbi or two active on the forums to correct my simplified, Christian description.

Ben

James Kugel's How to Read the Bible calls this "omnisignificance."

As to the interpretations (i.e. contextual interpretation was a later development), Halivni's Peshat and Derash: Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis covers this, but isn't available in Logos.

Shai Cherry's Torah through Time talks about it as well, but is much much less technical. I believe that's on prepub.

At issue, though, is what the interpreter thinks they're doing. Most people today when they interpret the Bible are intending to give the Peshat, the "plain meaning" or historical-contextual meaning. I have a much smaller problem with saying things like the OP provided that people understand it's a creative, non-contextual interpretation.

Rosie Perera

One first has to understand that Hebrew can be interpreted very differently than other languages because Hebrew is the language of God. Everything came into being through Hebrew.

Really? That's the first time I've heard that. How do we know what language -- if indeed it was a human language -- God spoke when he brought everything into being? It is described to us in Hebrew, but does that mean he spoke creation into being in Hebrew? My mother once found some book of linguistics which claimed to have found evidence that Hebrew was the mother of all languages. My mother was into very simplistic books at the time and I'm not so sure about the validity of that theory. I don't know much about linguistics, though, so I daren't speculate. There are other very ancient languages though. Just because the earliest written evidence of the origins of humanity that we have in the Bible are written in Hebrew doesn't mean that it didn't coexist alongside Phoenecian and Sumerian and other Ancient Near Eastern languages for a while, and it might have had some proto-Semitic origin.

MJ. Smith

Merged into response below.

Mike Aubrey

The reason aleph tav in gen 1:1 is left untranslated is because that is the name of Jesus or His signature in the OT. It is also the equivalent of alpha and omega in the greek. therefore here is a clear proof of Jesus' pre-existence even before creation.

The word aleph tav is an object marker in Hebrew the same way that English word order marks a verbs object.

Here's the academic editor at logos blog post on this one:

http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2009/04/great-moments-in-pulpit-paleobabble/

MJ. Smith

Here's the academic editor at logos blog post on this one:

And I need a link to a factually accurate, verbally abusive post why? Yes, I recognized and laughed at much of the humor but ...

Garcia

Mike Albrey,

Just for the record you made your post look like I was the author of this quote. In the original post I stated that I was looking for help in regards to the comment made by "Ferdie Bayot June 28, 2009" since I knew no Hebrew.

Interesting ideas pop up here and there and should be examined for validity. This was one where after reading the many excellent replies on this post has helped me greatly and at the same time made feel foolish at have even considering this idea had any merit.

However I find these forum to be visited by people that have a sound judgement of the understanding of the Word of God and feel comfortable asking questions when I do not understand.

I also want to thank you [:)] for the links to the UTubes videos; they helped me understand the craziness of the original quote.

Thanks to all for the help on this topic.

Alex Scott

Thanks for the link Mike. While I don't buy his argument, he does raise an interesting point that I hadn't considered and that led to some further research, and that is, in what language did Jesus actually speak these words? In the Hebrew New Testament, which is of course a translation, the words appear as אֲנִי הָאָלֶף אַף אֲנִי הַתָּו which I think might be translated "I am the aleph, and I, even I am the tav".

David Paul

There's a lot more to the aleph-taw than Heiser and some others think, particularly in G1.1. But I suspect he also thinks Isa. 28 is really about baby talk.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

MJ. Smith

But I suspect he also thinks Isa. 28 is really about baby talk.

You know, I need to spend less time on the forums - or more. I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Mike Aubrey

Just for the record you made your post look like I was the author of this quote. In the original post I stated that I was looking for help in regards to the comment made by "Ferdie Bayot June 28, 2009" since I knew no Hebrew.

Sorry, Hilton, that wasn't my intention. I apologize.

Mike Aubrey

Thanks for the link Mike. While I don't buy his argument, he does raise an interesting point that I hadn't considered and that led to some further research, and that is, in what language did Jesus actually speak these words? In the Hebrew New Testament, which is of course a translation, the words appear as אֲנִי הָאָלֶף אַף אֲנִי הַתָּו which I think might be translated "I am the aleph, and I, even I am the tav".

That may very well be. You look in the Bible dictionaries and you'll the that the question of what Jesus spoke is one of the most highly debated historical questions of the past 100+ years. There is no consensus and there like will never be any.

But the point of Mike Heiser's post (and he's right) is that Jesus is not in the Genesis 1:1. And if he is, then he's also in Genesis 4:1: "And Adam knew AlephTav his wife...."

Uhm, no.

David Paul

Um...yes.