This is a long and sometimes rambling account of my investigation into the creation account, specifically with regard to the word “Boker” or morning. It is one of the most fascinating concepts I have ever discovered with regard to the Torah and the Hebrew language. The question is, do the ideas contained within hold up to scrutiny?
I happened upon this thought whilst researching the creation account. I don’t know if it’s original or has been discussed before, but if anyone is familiar with this idea, can you point me towards an analysis (if such a thing exists)?
After researching their etymology, the words Erev and Boker (or Voker) seem to have dual meanings, and thus could be used to gain further insight into the text. The commonly accepted literal translation of the phrase “Vayehi erev vayehi voker yom echad” reads “And it was evening and it was morning, one day”.
I was initially interested in the word “boker” and why it has the same root as “bakar” or cattle. This led to me discovering that “boker” fundamentally means “splitting” or “cleaving”.
I was excited but not surprised to find that upon researching the word “Erev” that it held the opposite connotations, ideas of mixture or gathering.
Leaving aside discussion over the word “Yom“, literally meaning day for the moment (I have other theories about that), it is highly interesting to then read the verses in this new light (if you’ll pardon the pun).
“And it was unified, and it was split, day one” obviously makes perfect sense with regard to day one and holds interesting implications for the subsequent days.
The idea that the creation can be reconciled scientifically by a series of “splitting of states” is highly fascinating for me. This also resonates with the idea (as stated in the Shema) of God being “One” – perhaps this reality is just the result of the splitting of that “one” into smaller discrete parts?
Edit: I have recently found an independent version of a similar theory in the book “The Science of God” by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. He describes the same ideas (which he attributes to Nachmanides), but instead relates ‘erev’ to mixture as in disorder or chaos. And to ‘boker’ he ascribes the idea of order (from bikoret-orderly, able to be observed). However he still seems to have missed the fundamental idea of ‘splitting’ which in my opinion is the key to unlocking the whole thing.
So to clarify the question: Has anyone written an analysis of Genesis 1 through the lens of these alternate meanings of ‘erev’ and ‘boker’? Is mine a plausible theory? Why or why not?
Edit 2: I just thought of another key argument which (again very simply but elegantly) supports my claims. In conversation with AbuMunirIbnIbrahim he challenged me on the meaning of בָּקָר, saying there is no evidence of linkage with the idea of splitting or division. I answered him thusly:
“In the case of בָּקַע and בָּקָר, however there is a clear linkage, which is discernible from one key translation of the root word:”בְּקַר: to plough, to break forth, to inspect. The Gesenius Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon translated by Friedrich Wilhelm states that the word בָּקָר is named for its purpose: of ploughing. This shows an undeniable link. Additionally there is also a second link which is that of the cloven hoof, which is one of the fundamental aspects of Kashrut.”
Coincidentally the other defining feature of a Kosher animal is that it is ruminant, ie. It has a divided or split stomach relative to other mammals. So both aspects of Kashrut involve the idea of splitting or division.
However, his reference to Ezekiel 34:12 really got me thinking…
As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are separated, so will I seek out My sheep; and I will deliver them out of all places whither they have been scattered in the day of clouds and thick darkness.
Look at this verse closely. “his sheep that are separated”. It hit me that this a fundamental characteristic of “בָּקָר” or cattle:- to flock or herd. A single animal from a flock represents the division of a whole into smaller discrete parts. Again this consistent use of language resonates perfectly and works with everything in its context. Sheep separating from the flock. The flock separating from the shepherd. Man separating from God. This verse (intentionally or not) uses the three letter root בקר twice and is directly concerned with the idea of unification (the flock) and divison (the scattering) and the subsequent reunification.
Edit 3: After some more research I am convinced that the two letter root “בק” literally means divide or split. Further, I am starting to think that the two letter root forms a fundamental part of the 3 letter root (which I have now subsequently learned is also a major part of Kabalistic thought). http://www.2letterlookup.com/ is a very useful tool in efficiently searching for patterns in the letter combinations and in the brief time I’ve been using it, I’ve seen some remarkable results.
In addition to the words listed above, I started looking for 3 letter root words with בק at the end (letters 2 and 3). Again I found multiple references to the idea of splitting, but one in particular stood out:
-Abaq (אָבַק or אָבָק) according to Gesenius means “fine dust” or “light particles” His conjecture as to the etymology reads:
“אָבַק a root not used in Kal, which I suppose to have had the force of to pound, to make small, from the onomatopoetic syllable בק, בך, פג, פק, which, as well as דך, דק (see דָּקַק, דָּכַךְ ), had the force of pounding; comp. בָּכָה to drop, to distil;”
The feminine form of the word also means powder. Clearly the idea of dust or powder as small particles removed from a larger whole again demonstrate exactly the same concept.
But this isn’t where it ends- it gets far more interesting. Genesis Chap. 32 recounts the story of Yaakov wrestling with the angel. The story often seems to be making cryptic allusions. First, Yaakov and his family crossed the ford of Yabok (יבק) – a name which appears to be highly symbolic. Then they wrestled (וַיֵּאָבֵק) the etymology again goes back to dust.
However, Rashi has a different interpretation attributing the word to an Aramaic expression found in the Talmud: דָּאִבִיקוּ. This is derivative of the 3 letter root דבק, meaning adhere, glue or impinge. Again the word references the concept of unification and division, since glue binds two discrete objects together.
I realise that this is moving away somewhat from a hermeneutic question, but I think it needs to be discussed. Either way I have realised that the Hebrew language is so much more complex and ingenious than I ever realised.
We can help with broadcasting them to the web:
Varnel Watson
Amen there Daniel Rushing Michael Ellis Carter Jr. William DeArteaga Millions Pentecostals worldwide can benefit from fine scholarship and we can help the papers be made available for free
Dave Ketter
If you mean those papers from the annual meeting, they can’t because the copyrights are held by their authors. And their Brill contract might prevent doing that with Pneuma articles.
Varnel Watson
Dave Ketter William DeArteaga Surely most of these have expired and could be negotiated. After all, 99% of printed periodicals in America have been freely offered online Why hold on to scholarly resources that can help millions Pentecostals and theologians worldwide and Make Theology Great Again? https://app.box.com/s/p6p7jd4w4l5tonzejtj51ozdgxuv4fir
Dave Ketter
Copyrights don’t expire until 70 years after the life of the author.
Dan Irving
The very notion of copyrighted “Pentecostal” material is chilling.
Dave Ketter
Not for nothing; but I’d like the ability to put mine into a larger book that is more readily available and accessible to people.
Dan Irving
If the information and insights came through natural/wordly means, then I would agree, yes, there is a proprietary interest in them. If they came from the Spirit of God, withholding them would seem contrary to Christ’s commandment, “Freely ye have received, freely give.” I suppose each of us must decide whether what we have received was by the Spirit or by academic efforts.
Varnel Watson
Publishing costs are high and must be covered somehow. No argument there. But once they are covered there is no problem to make the papers free for all to read. Furthermore, most papers presented come with membership dues anyway. Making even some papers free would promote the magazine and bring more readers. In global Pentecostalism context where this could mean millions the idea is worth at least some consideration. Other publishers have long done it with great success and avid returns
Dan Irving
High? It’s as cheap as pushing a button on one’s keyboard.
A.J. Bible
Dan Irving, how many books have you published?
Varnel Watson
A.J. Bible These are not books but research papers presented upon one’s paid membership ie costs covered by author. As part of this process they are all already posted on the internet It is a matter of allowing free access. I’ve authored over two dozen books and have made them available on Kindle where possible. This group has also helped several Pentecostal foundations publish and promote their scholarly research at virtually no charge. We can do the same for Dake Publishers as many resources from Dake Bible are already circulating free on the internet
Varnel Watson
Dave Ketter No argument against copyright. But for digital online version copyright could be negotiated to 25 yrs as well
No one is saying make it all free, but if its 25 yrs old (SPS started 1982) make it free for all to read – what could be that big of a deal?
I know 2 dozen SPS authors in this group alone that will GLADLY release personal copyrights to make their papers free to read to Pentecostals globally – isnt our mandate to reach the whole world anyway? And we can help. We’ve done it before with other Pentecostal publishers. Nothing to lose. There’s only something to gain for global Pentecostalism and it is at least worth some consideration and perhaps voting as agenda item in the business meeting William DeArteaga Daniel Rushing Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
I agree with you Troy Day this could help us shape the future of Pentecostals globally.
Varnel Watson
Overall this is not a small issue. Imagine the gain for Pentecostal scholars, students, pastors, churches and general readers SPS papers 25 yrs and older are released this year alone. That means a decade long of Pentecostal scholarship 1982-1990 – basically the 80s most crucial for the establishing of the 70s Charismatic churches and the baby boomers as Pentecostal wing in America alone not to mention the rise of the 3rd wavers and the overall research for Classical Pentecostalism right there while establishing its doctrine as a filed in academia.
Varnel Watson
William DeArteaga Overall this is not a small issue. Imagine the gain for Pentecostal scholars, students, pastors, churches and general readers SPS papers 25 yrs and older are released this year alone. That means a decade long of Pentecostal scholarship 1982-1990 – basically the 80s most crucial for the establishing of the 70s Charismatic churches and the baby boomers as Pentecostal wing in America alone not to mention the rise of the 3rd wavers and the overall research for Classical Pentecostalism right there while establishing its doctrine as a filed in academia.
This is not a small issue to consider Dave Ketter Just think about the global effect on Pentecostals worldwide. Reach to all SPS members talking in this group to offer words of wisdom and appropriate action. Daniel Rushing <— the force is strong with this one…
Varnel Watson
William DeArteaga Daniel Rushing Jon Ruthven Joseph Kidwell Dave Ketter
With over 20 politically loaded topics that I just counted in the program (there is probably many more) it is still quite surprising SPS dos not have political theology yet. Wonder why? sps-usa.org
1. WTS THEME: BORDERS: BANE OR BLESSING?
2. Recent political, economic, and social events, from immigration issues coming to the fore in the Brexit vote and the USA presidential election to relentless terrorist attacks across national borders
3. Christian Ethics—Panel Discussion: “Pentecostalism and Trump’s America”
4. Decolonizing Identity Politics
5. London School of Theology, “A Task for the Anointing: Human Flourishing From a Pentecostal Perspective in the Trumpian Epoch
6. Identity/Politics: Jean-Luc Nancy and the Falleness of identity
7. A Wesleyan Means of Moral and Political Formation
8. Boundaries are not Borders – A Narrative Exploration of Immigration
9. “Borders, Habitations, Foreigners, and Strangers: Mary Bosanquet Fletcher’s Metaphors for an Expanding and Inclusive Gospel Ministry from the Margins”
10. Human Right Versus Human Rights
11. Keynote Address: “Breaking Borders & Boundaries Through Technology in a Digital Age,”
12. Are some borders necessary to the establishment of the kingdom of God? If so, what are they?
13. Are there borders which should separate Christians from people of other faiths?
14. Constructing Borders of Legitimacy and the Assimilation of Ethnics
15. Beyond Borders: A Relationship of Love with a Syrian Refugee Family
16. Complementarianism: Borders in Bodies
17. Segregation and Real-Estate Covenants in Kansas City
18. The Joseph Dilemma: Spiritual Advisers and the Burden of Political Access
19. By My Spirit: Divine and Human Agency in the Transformation of Sociopolitical Realities
20. Defending Borders & Godly Nationalism
Dave Ketter
It’s worth pointing out that many of these papers listed are actually WTS (Wesleyan Theological Society). SPS has some. But not to the degree that WTS has this year.
That said, there’s a process for setting up an interest group and anyone can engage that. If it garners interest among conference attendees, it will be added. The President said as much on another interest group possibility yesterday.
Varnel Watson
True for the LGBT papers too, hence WTS theme posted @ the start of the list Still a political theology group seems to be missing for both parties in this joint meeting
Varnel Watson
William DeArteaga Is it possible that we have approach this the wrong way? Instead of asking SPS we should have asked SPS presenters to publish papers in the group for all of us to learn Daniel Rushing Dave Ketter Dan Irving
Dan Irving
Hmmm . . Sounds like just a lot of SJW stuff.
Varnel Watson
well still I think we may have approached it differently
Varnel Watson
They probably wouldnt Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
Michael Ellis Carter Jr.
Troy Day I agree they probably wouldn’t. I can’t get them from places I pay to have access lol ?
Varnel Watson
If you are a member you can still get them annually BUT its not like they are for sale any other venue so why not make them free? Especially the ones from 70-80s
Varnel Watson
do you think they will ever do it? Francisco Arriola