What do you think?
Rate this book
Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2
Considered a classic in Christian apologetics, this scholarly analysis of the Biblical phrase "without form and void", from the opening chapter of Genesis, observes the rules of linguistics, of grammar and syntax, and also examines how words are used in the rest of Scripture. This book has been described as the best argument that has ever been written for the Gap Theory. A well respected Canadian scientist himself, and listed in the 1971 American Men in Science, Dr. Custance contends that we should not allow science to determine what Scripture says. Neither should we allow Scripture to determine what the scientist observes in the laboratory. Yet observed fact in the one cannot, ultimately, conflict with revealed fact in the other. Any conflict, then, is in the interpretation of the facts - not in the facts themselves.
292 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1970
1 person is currently reading
49 people want to read
About the author
Arthur C. Custance
41Ìýbooks8ÌýfollowersFrom linked site:
About the Author
Arthur C. Custance was born and educated in England and moved to Canada in 1928. In his second year at the University of Toronto he was converted to faith in Christ. The experience so changed his thinking that he switched courses, obtaining an honours M.A. in Hebrew and Greek. In his 13 years of formal education, he explored many facets of knowledge and was particularly interested in anthropology and origins. He completed his Ph.D. at the University of Ottawa in 1959 while serving as head of the Human Engineering Laboratories of the Defence Research Board in Ottawa (Canada) and was engaged in research work for 15 years. During that time he also wrote and published The Doorway Papers, and in retirement in 1970, he wrote 6 major books. His writings are characterized by a rare combination of scholarly thoroughness and biblical orthodoxy.
Biography of Arthur C. Custance
1910 Â- 1985
Arthur Custance was born in Norfolk, England. Upon completion of his primary and secondary education, he failed the Oxford and Cambridge Entrance Examinations (three times!). Just at this time the British Government had a scheme to “bring culture to the Colonies�, and offered to send him to the Canadian province of Ontario with the promise of 800 acres of land to build laboratories to bring improvements to farming.
About the Author
Arthur C. Custance was born and educated in England and moved to Canada in 1928. In his second year at the University of Toronto he was converted to faith in Christ. The experience so changed his thinking that he switched courses, obtaining an honours M.A. in Hebrew and Greek. In his 13 years of formal education, he explored many facets of knowledge and was particularly interested in anthropology and origins. He completed his Ph.D. at the University of Ottawa in 1959 while serving as head of the Human Engineering Laboratories of the Defence Research Board in Ottawa (Canada) and was engaged in research work for 15 years. During that time he also wrote and published The Doorway Papers, and in retirement in 1970, he wrote 6 major books. His writings are characterized by a rare combination of scholarly thoroughness and biblical orthodoxy.
Biography of Arthur C. Custance
1910 Â- 1985
Arthur Custance was born in Norfolk, England. Upon completion of his primary and secondary education, he failed the Oxford and Cambridge Entrance Examinations (three times!). Just at this time the British Government had a scheme to “bring culture to the Colonies�, and offered to send him to the Canadian province of Ontario with the promise of 800 acres of land to build laboratories to bring improvements to farming.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 16, 2018
Careful Study of Forgotten View Deserves a Second Look
“And the earth was without form and void…� or “But the earth had become a ruin and a desolation…� Which of these is the more correct translation of Genesis 1:2? Since almost all English translations render it the first way, one might be tempted to think that the answer is obvious, straightforward, and free from any ambiguity.
Author Arthur Custance wrote his 1970 book “Without Form and Void� to argue that there are good reasons why one should not hurry to draw that conclusion.
What is termed the Gap Theory actually consists of two related but distinct views. The first, which forms the bulk of the book, is whether the Hebrew verb in Gen.1:2 should be translated “was� or “had become.� The second has to do with the translation of the Hebrew words which are usually rendered “without form and void,� the issue being whether their use elsewhere in Scripture suggests more of a connotation of divine judgment and of destruction, which would suggest the translation “a ruin and a desolation.�
And then a third view, which is related even though strictly speaking it wouldn’t fall under Gap Theory because it doesn’t challenge the inherited English translation, is that the structure of the Hebrew text indicates a break in the narrative between the first two verses of Genesis 1, such that the first day of the creation week may not be the first day of the creation itself.
There are a couple of claims that are often cited that do a lot of rhetorical work for critics of this view which, upon examination, are shown to be false. One is the idea that no Hebrew scholar supports or even gives any serious thought to this view. In response, we are introduced to several recognized and respected Hebraists who support the Gap Theory either in its entirety (for example, E.B. Pusey, Oxford Professor of Hebrew, died 1882), or in one of its views (for example, Franz Delitzsch, German Hebraist, died 1890, who held to the second view but not the first).
Another claim is that the Gap Theory is recent. “The usual view is that when geologists “proved� the earth to be billions of years old, conservative biblical students suddenly discovered a way of salvaging the Mosaic account by introducing a gap of unknown duration between [the first two verses of Genesis chapter one]. This is supposed to have solved the problem of time by an expeditious interpretation previously unrecognized. This convenient little device was attributed by many to Thomas Chalmers in the middle of the 19th century.�
This is not even close to being correct, as the detailed historical survey that we are given clearly shows. Rather than being recent, this is an ancient view, long antedating modern geological views. For example, an old Aramaic Version of the Old Testament which dates to the second century B.C. renders Gen.1:2 as “and the earth was laid waste.� And then we are given a list of names down through the subsequent ancient and medieval centuries, such as the Church Father Origen, the English poet Caedmon (A.D. 650), the Flemish scholar Hugo St. Victor (d. 1141), Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), and Pererius (d. 1610, “the most learned of all medieval commentators on Genesis�).
Though not all of those surveyed would have necessarily held to both points of a full-fledged “Gap Theory,� they would all at the very least have agreed that a period of unknown duration intervened between Gen.1:1 and 1:2. It is worth noting that they might very probably have assented to Archbishop Ussher’s chronology as applied to the creation of Adam but they would have set the creation of “the heavens and the earth� further back in time than 4000 B.C. by some unstated amount.
A good portion of the book is devoted to a two-part linguistic argument. The first and more important one deals with the translation of the Hebrew verb which is usually rendered “was,� and the second part argues for the alternate translation of the descriptive terms in verse 2.
In the first part, he argues that the Hebrew language does not use the verb “to be� in the simple copulative sense like English does, as a mere connector of words. When that idea is intended in Hebrew, the verb is intentionally omitted, and the translators have to add the English words “is� or “was� in order for the sentence to make sense to us. The Hebrew meaning of the verb “to be� is much more active or dynamic, with the sense of “becoming� being what is usually in view. Given the validity of this rule, the fact that the verb is in fact supplied in Genesis 1:2 tells us that a rendering of “became� would at this point be preferable to one of “was.�
But the argument continues: in Hebrew the normal word order in a sentence is the verb first, subject next, and object after that. If the word order is inverted, such that the subject precedes the verb, this is a device that serves the purpose of communicating a pluperfect tense, which is used to describe an action that had already finished when another action happened. In fact, inverting the word order is the only way that Hebrew can do this. And this inverted word order is just what we find in Gen.1:2. And so, given that the simple copula “was� is ruled out, “the earth had become� is the more appropriate rendering.
So while that’s not the whole argument, it is the primary one, but we are still left with the reality that almost all English translations still give the rendering as “was.� Nevertheless the author isn’t sure what can really be proved by a mere appeal to consensus or opinion. What matters is reasons, not numbers. He would ask whether those involved in modern translations are even aware of the background information that is now available on the matter, or whether for some authorities prejudice could possibly play a part, as they would have associated the alternative rendering with Fundamentalism, the movement which popularized it, and simply dismissed the subject as unworthy of serious study.
More substantially, he points to the formation of the Septuagint as a possible culprit for today’s translations. He notes that the Septuagint translators made an odd exception in their translation from Hebrew into Greek in that only in Gen.1:2 did they render the verb as the simple copula “was�; in all other occurrences involving translating the Hebrew verb for “to be� into Greek (excluding the future or the imperative) they chose the rendering of “became.� Why would they do that? The suggestion is made that the translators felt that such a rendering, though not being entirely precise, would nevertheless be appropriate because it would allow them to present a cosmogony which avoided conflict with that held by the Greeks whereby creation began with a Chaos rather than a Cosmos. Such a conflict would have appeared had they translated Gen. 1:2 “the earth had become disorganized…� since this clearly implies that it had not been so in the beginning. And yet at the same time such a rendering would not actually distort the Hebrew text but it would leave the meaning “open� such that it could be interpreted by the reader with some freedom to adjust the meaning to his own particular preconceptions.
An unintended consequence of this idiosyncratic translation is that the Septuagint has cast a long shadow in influencing subsequent Bible translators, beginning with Jerome and his production of the Latin Vulgate, where he appears to follow the Septuagint by consistently giving a rendering of “became� in the first chapter of Genesis, except for verse 2, where he has “was.�
He does respond to some modern objections, but concludes: “I have yet to see a really sound counter-argument to the view presented in this volume� Few, if any, of its critics have really taken the trouble to study the evidence adequately…�
The book “is written for those who still have an open mind and who do not expect in such questions as these to achieve absolute certainty where we are dealing with an ancient language whose grammar and syntax we still do not understand completely.� But while he is careful in not overstating the strength of his linguistic arguments, what is not is dispute is that this is a long-held view, having among its adherents recognized Hebrew scholars, and as such it “deserves more serious consideration as an alternative than it has been customary to afford it in recent years.�
“And the earth was without form and void…� or “But the earth had become a ruin and a desolation…� Which of these is the more correct translation of Genesis 1:2? Since almost all English translations render it the first way, one might be tempted to think that the answer is obvious, straightforward, and free from any ambiguity.
Author Arthur Custance wrote his 1970 book “Without Form and Void� to argue that there are good reasons why one should not hurry to draw that conclusion.
What is termed the Gap Theory actually consists of two related but distinct views. The first, which forms the bulk of the book, is whether the Hebrew verb in Gen.1:2 should be translated “was� or “had become.� The second has to do with the translation of the Hebrew words which are usually rendered “without form and void,� the issue being whether their use elsewhere in Scripture suggests more of a connotation of divine judgment and of destruction, which would suggest the translation “a ruin and a desolation.�
And then a third view, which is related even though strictly speaking it wouldn’t fall under Gap Theory because it doesn’t challenge the inherited English translation, is that the structure of the Hebrew text indicates a break in the narrative between the first two verses of Genesis 1, such that the first day of the creation week may not be the first day of the creation itself.
There are a couple of claims that are often cited that do a lot of rhetorical work for critics of this view which, upon examination, are shown to be false. One is the idea that no Hebrew scholar supports or even gives any serious thought to this view. In response, we are introduced to several recognized and respected Hebraists who support the Gap Theory either in its entirety (for example, E.B. Pusey, Oxford Professor of Hebrew, died 1882), or in one of its views (for example, Franz Delitzsch, German Hebraist, died 1890, who held to the second view but not the first).
Another claim is that the Gap Theory is recent. “The usual view is that when geologists “proved� the earth to be billions of years old, conservative biblical students suddenly discovered a way of salvaging the Mosaic account by introducing a gap of unknown duration between [the first two verses of Genesis chapter one]. This is supposed to have solved the problem of time by an expeditious interpretation previously unrecognized. This convenient little device was attributed by many to Thomas Chalmers in the middle of the 19th century.�
This is not even close to being correct, as the detailed historical survey that we are given clearly shows. Rather than being recent, this is an ancient view, long antedating modern geological views. For example, an old Aramaic Version of the Old Testament which dates to the second century B.C. renders Gen.1:2 as “and the earth was laid waste.� And then we are given a list of names down through the subsequent ancient and medieval centuries, such as the Church Father Origen, the English poet Caedmon (A.D. 650), the Flemish scholar Hugo St. Victor (d. 1141), Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), and Pererius (d. 1610, “the most learned of all medieval commentators on Genesis�).
Though not all of those surveyed would have necessarily held to both points of a full-fledged “Gap Theory,� they would all at the very least have agreed that a period of unknown duration intervened between Gen.1:1 and 1:2. It is worth noting that they might very probably have assented to Archbishop Ussher’s chronology as applied to the creation of Adam but they would have set the creation of “the heavens and the earth� further back in time than 4000 B.C. by some unstated amount.
A good portion of the book is devoted to a two-part linguistic argument. The first and more important one deals with the translation of the Hebrew verb which is usually rendered “was,� and the second part argues for the alternate translation of the descriptive terms in verse 2.
In the first part, he argues that the Hebrew language does not use the verb “to be� in the simple copulative sense like English does, as a mere connector of words. When that idea is intended in Hebrew, the verb is intentionally omitted, and the translators have to add the English words “is� or “was� in order for the sentence to make sense to us. The Hebrew meaning of the verb “to be� is much more active or dynamic, with the sense of “becoming� being what is usually in view. Given the validity of this rule, the fact that the verb is in fact supplied in Genesis 1:2 tells us that a rendering of “became� would at this point be preferable to one of “was.�
But the argument continues: in Hebrew the normal word order in a sentence is the verb first, subject next, and object after that. If the word order is inverted, such that the subject precedes the verb, this is a device that serves the purpose of communicating a pluperfect tense, which is used to describe an action that had already finished when another action happened. In fact, inverting the word order is the only way that Hebrew can do this. And this inverted word order is just what we find in Gen.1:2. And so, given that the simple copula “was� is ruled out, “the earth had become� is the more appropriate rendering.
So while that’s not the whole argument, it is the primary one, but we are still left with the reality that almost all English translations still give the rendering as “was.� Nevertheless the author isn’t sure what can really be proved by a mere appeal to consensus or opinion. What matters is reasons, not numbers. He would ask whether those involved in modern translations are even aware of the background information that is now available on the matter, or whether for some authorities prejudice could possibly play a part, as they would have associated the alternative rendering with Fundamentalism, the movement which popularized it, and simply dismissed the subject as unworthy of serious study.
More substantially, he points to the formation of the Septuagint as a possible culprit for today’s translations. He notes that the Septuagint translators made an odd exception in their translation from Hebrew into Greek in that only in Gen.1:2 did they render the verb as the simple copula “was�; in all other occurrences involving translating the Hebrew verb for “to be� into Greek (excluding the future or the imperative) they chose the rendering of “became.� Why would they do that? The suggestion is made that the translators felt that such a rendering, though not being entirely precise, would nevertheless be appropriate because it would allow them to present a cosmogony which avoided conflict with that held by the Greeks whereby creation began with a Chaos rather than a Cosmos. Such a conflict would have appeared had they translated Gen. 1:2 “the earth had become disorganized…� since this clearly implies that it had not been so in the beginning. And yet at the same time such a rendering would not actually distort the Hebrew text but it would leave the meaning “open� such that it could be interpreted by the reader with some freedom to adjust the meaning to his own particular preconceptions.
An unintended consequence of this idiosyncratic translation is that the Septuagint has cast a long shadow in influencing subsequent Bible translators, beginning with Jerome and his production of the Latin Vulgate, where he appears to follow the Septuagint by consistently giving a rendering of “became� in the first chapter of Genesis, except for verse 2, where he has “was.�
He does respond to some modern objections, but concludes: “I have yet to see a really sound counter-argument to the view presented in this volume� Few, if any, of its critics have really taken the trouble to study the evidence adequately…�
The book “is written for those who still have an open mind and who do not expect in such questions as these to achieve absolute certainty where we are dealing with an ancient language whose grammar and syntax we still do not understand completely.� But while he is careful in not overstating the strength of his linguistic arguments, what is not is dispute is that this is a long-held view, having among its adherents recognized Hebrew scholars, and as such it “deserves more serious consideration as an alternative than it has been customary to afford it in recent years.�
March 26, 2021
I didn't read through all the appendices, but I appreciated his thorough study on the Hebrew of Genesis 1:2 and his survey of the various interpretations over the centuries. He didn't tell us what we had to think, but he pointed out the error of common claims based on presuppositions and emotions. I wish more scholars took his analytical yet humble approach.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.