Graham Pemberton
3 min readApr 21, 2023

--

Hi David

You seem to be suggesting that there is only one original text (of Genesis). That may well be true, but the question is, do we have it? As you're probably aware, scholars believe that there are two separate creation stories, and have therefore concluded that two different sources, known as E and J, have been combined. If that is true, and I'll discuss that issue later in the series, then the text of Genesis as we have it cannot be the original text of a single author. This in itself can lead to confusion.

The writers I'm discussing, however, believe that the text they have is the original version. So, just to make things clearer, let's compare their Hebrew version to the one you're referring to. This is obviously a phonetic transcription of the Hebrew, but this is the text of Genesis 1 v1 in their version: “Beraeshith barà Aelohim aeth-ha-shamaîm w'aethha-âretz”. Is that the same as the version you claim is the original?

Even if it is, we have to consider the possible different levels of meaning and interpretation. It is not seriously disputed that the writers of ancient religious and esoteric texts intended these. We can call these literal, allegorical/symbolic, and mystical (the deepest), and there are perhaps others. In order to truly understand a text, we would have to penetrate to the deepest levels. D'Olivet, in relation to the Genesis of Moses, calls these three levels the literal, the figurative, and the hieroglyphic. He mentions Heraclitus who calls them the spoken, the significant, and the hidden.

So, even if we are talking about the same original version, we then have to ask whether we have understood the deepest meaning. D'Olivet says that Moses used all three levels: “his phrase is almost invariably constituted in such a manner as to present three meanings: this is why no kind of word-for-word can render his thought”.

It is therefore reasonable to ask whether the sources you refer to have penetrated beyond the surface, literal meaning of the text. Here is Redfield's English translation of D'Olivet's rendering of the verse quoted above: “At-First-In-Principle, he created, Aelohim the selfsameness of earth”. (The French word for selfsameness is l'ipséité).

(In what follows, unfortunately my computer isn't up to producing the original Hebrew alphabet, so I'll have to use the letter x.)

Obviously you aren't going to agree, but d'Olivet says that “the word xxxxx... is a modificative noun formed from the substantive xxx, the head, the chief, the acting principle, inflected by the mediative article x, and modified by the designative ending xx. It signifies literally, in the beginning, before all; but figuratively in principle, in power of being”.

He goes on to discuss the hieroglyphic (deepest) meaning. The word xxx signifies head, “but only in a restricted and particular sense. In a broader and more generic sense, it signifies principle...” He continues, but that is enough to make the point. In his interpretation creation in principle is the deeper figurative and mystical meaning of the text. I see nothing circular in this argument.

As I pointed out, the material world does not remain 'in principle' forever, since the process of manifestation is described in the following chapters. More on that to follow.

Gerald R. Baron

Bruce McGraw

Janice LaBonte

--

--

Graham Pemberton
Graham Pemberton

Written by Graham Pemberton

I am a singer/songwriter interested in spirituality, politics, psychology, science, and their interrelationships. grahampemberton.com spiritualityinpolitics.com

Responses (1)