Philip wrote:Jac, edjumucate me, but my perception is that virtually no Hebrew scholars presently defend the Gap Theory, due precisely to the strict rules of Hebrew grammar and what it does and does not allow.
Read Bruce Waltke's analysis of the issue:
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/TheNakedB ... Theory.pdf
No, there are absolutely no Hebrew scholars that I am aware of who take the GT seriously. It is definitely ruled out by the construction of Gen 1:2. Here's a very short explanation of the matter:
- Hebrew text: וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ
Transliterated: viha'aretz haytah tohu vabohu
Translation: Now the earth was formless and void
The important part is in bold. The first letter, the waw, (
vi in the transliteration and the first line with the dot under it on the right side of the word; remember Hebrew is read right to left) is used to connect words and concepts. The nature of that connection depends on the kind of word it is connected to and the construction that it is in. You see the same connection at the beginning of
vabohu; again, you see the straight vertical line under the first letter of the fourth word in the Hebrew text (the word on the far left). Right under that straight line is a little
t looking shape under it That
t is a vowel that says "ah." The signel dot under the first waw is a vowel that says "ee" (so thus transliteration).
Okay, so much for the alphabet. The reason that's important is that when the waw is connected to a verb at the beginning of the sentence, it is called a
waw-consecutive. If you pull up the Hebrew text of most narrative portions of the Bible, you'll see that waw-consecutive starts most verses. The function of that is to essentially say, "And this happened next." It moves the story along. Gap theorists, not really knowing Hebrew, saw that waw and assumed we had a waw-consecutive at the beginning of Gen 1:2 and assume that Gen 1:1 happens
and then Gen 1:2 happens.
But they are wrong. The waw at the beginning of 1:2 is NOT a waw-consecutive. The reason is that the waw is not connected to a verb. It is, rather, connected to a noun (ha'arets = "the earth"). When connected to a noun, the waw becomes a waw-disjunctive or explanatory waw. What THAT does is NOT say what happens next--and this is VERY important--but rather tells us
THE CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING THE PREVIOUS VERSE OR CLAUSE. And, in fact, we see three such circumstances in Gen 1:2. The earth was 1) formless and void, 2) darkness was over the surface of the deep, and 3) the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
In other words, the text is NOT saying that God created
and then the earth became formless and void
and then darkness was over the deep
and then God was hovering over the waters. Rather, the text is saying that this is the way God created the world: formless and void, with darkness over the surface of the waters. That means that there can be no gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2.
All of this is common knowledge among Hebrew grammarians. By analogy, the gap theory has no more textual basis that Calvinists do when they assert that faith is a gift and appeal to Eph 2:8-9. It just doesn't work at all.
And as an aside, Jer 4 is a very weak argument. The prophet certainly uses the phrase "formless and void," but that doesn't mean that he is referring back to the events of Gen 1. He is using the same language to highlight the devestation to come. It's important to remember there that Jeremiah's prophecy is about a future event, not a past one. Again, OT scholars see that clearly.
No one takes Jeremiah 4 as describing events of the past. It's completely indefensible.
Bottom line, there is a good reason that absolutely no conservative scholars (at least, that I'm aware of) hold to the GT today and that there are no papers defending the position. There are some pastors here and there who don't know Hebrew and read commentaries written back in the 30s, 40s, and 50s. But modern scholarship? No. It just doesn't exist in any serious form. Everyone is either YEC or OEC with some people in between who adopt either a YEC or OEC reading but then interpret the text from a different theological lens (e.g., Walton's Temple Dedication view).