Just for fun, below is a unique but lexically possible translation of Genesis 1.1-2. I’m not in any way suggesting that I subscribe to this translation, but I’d love to hear your feedback and comments interacting with it. I do like the different translation, but I have a few reservations:
בּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃ וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה תֹ֙הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְה֑וֹם וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃
1- In the beginning God created everything.2- But the (Promised) Land was without form and a wasteland, the deep seas were very dark while the Spirit of God was hovering over the water.
29 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 22, 2009 at 7:52 pm
danielandtonya
We like the treatment of the merismus in 1.1. Sounds like The Message.
How is it lexically possible that this use of ארץ is referring to the land of Israel? How does this reading of ארץ mesh with the understanding of the merismus? Does not seem possible to us.
Thanks for offering a translation for discussion.
D&T
July 22, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Michael
Rob: this is a great translation…
For me to poop on!
J/k
But, seriously, what justification is there for taking ארץ as the land promised to Israel, particularly given the juxtaposition of land with water in rendition of the creation of the cosmos?
July 22, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Rob Kashow
Thanks for the comments guys.
In short, this perspective presupposes those reading Torah is the generation which entered the land, which really isn’t that far fetched. The article here would of course be monadic referring to “the” land i..e the Promised Land. While the Promised Land is typically qualified by the genetive noun ‘Canaan,’ this is not always the case. See, Gn 11:31, 12:1, 12:5, 12:6, 12:7, 31:3, Ex 14:34, Dt 17:14, 18:9 (Halot s.v. erets, n.2.e).
Mike, many interpreters of the Genesis text see the first statement as introductory. Thus, the merism sets the stage for the rest of the text. God creates everything (intro), but the land ….
Such a lexical switch is not impossible and the term erets read from the eyes of those who just inherited the land would potentially read the text this way. However, Mike, your question is one of the reservations that I have.
July 22, 2009 at 8:19 pm
danielandtonya
Wouldn’t that be one community’s re-appropriation of the text/story (doubt they had a text going into the land) and not a lexical rendering of ארץ? I think what you’re describing is reception, not a lexically possible translation.
Poop away Mike.
July 22, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Rob Kashow
Right, but isn’t the community’s re-appropriate the text/story that Jews and Christians now read? Even those in the post-exile, I think, would read it this way. What you’re suggesting is that it was not originally understood this way, but that presupposes no redactive activity. Considering the lack of explicit reference to Gen 1-11 (there is some, but very little) in the rest of the Tanak, I think a case can be made in the least for a late redaction/inclusion of the Gen 1-2 text, which would actually see this not as a re-appropriation but the way it was initially read. Especially if Wellhausen’s dating of the Torah has any validity (i.e. the prophets are written before the Law).
July 22, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Luke
Sounds like a canonical translation/interpretation gone too far
In my opinion, Rob, this could open up the translation to a lot of things. For instance, the one who adopts this translation would claim that the original recipients would have the Promised land in mind. Well, good for them, but what about us now as Christians? Can we read and translate “heaven” now if we’re reading the text theologically and in a way that it has a relevant impact in our everyday lives. Or maybe we can insert the word “new” and read it “new land” in reference to the new heavens and earth that history is heading towards. It’s interesting translation theory, and if we’re reading the text theologically we can do this, but it would be against my personal preference. Although i sometimes feel we must go beyond the surface level in translation and interpretation, I don’t see much in Genesis 1 that merits this.
July 22, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Rob Kashow
Luke, I don’t think it does. I think it comes down to when was the Gen 1-2 given to the Israelite. If you think they received it before they entered the Land, then you would disagree. But this is a stretch in my opinion an extremely fundamental perspective. If, however, you think they received the Gen 1-2 text after inheriting the land, then this translation is highly likely.
In light of this, everything else you hypothetically suggest it opens the door to is NOT a possibility.
My comment in response to D&T’s comment is because Gen 1 is likely a polemic against the Babylonian creation account. For this reason, it has been reappropriated, but reappropriated with a theological construal.
July 22, 2009 at 9:12 pm
danielandtonya
“reappropriated with a theological construal”
yes, not a lexically possible translation as you first said
July 22, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Rob Kashow
i don’t follow? i said it is a lexically possibly translation.
what i meant was when the text was initially written in hebrew, it was reappropriated from the enuma elish with a theological construal. That is, e.g. it isn’t the Baal who is God, but YHWH, as well as the Land is a factor in all of this, especially in Genesis.
July 22, 2009 at 9:41 pm
danielandtonya
we’re saying your “translation” is better titled a “re-appropriation”. gen 1 is, as you say, a polemic against babylonian texts not a translation of them. you’ve provided one reappropriation, but not a valid lexical translation.
we meant, “yes, it is a reappropriation with a theological construal”
July 22, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Rob Kashow
I’m not so sure you understanding what I’m suggesting. I’m suggesting Gen 1-2 was always an re-appropriation (from the very time it was composed) and for that reason a valid lexical translation. What I mean is, Gen 1-2 is not the enuma elish, but it is the Israelites construal of the creation account with YHWH as creator.
So then lexically, the above translation is indeed possible.
July 22, 2009 at 10:18 pm
danielandtonya
That’s not a good enough reason. You’re comparing a re-appropriation (subversion is more like it) with a translation. They are not the same. You’re jumping from one supposed reappropriation to the BH lexicon.
Perhaps you should be more specific and say, the above understanding is possible to an ancient Israelite community entering the land. It is not possible for all.
Wellhausen? Redaction? We are definitely coming at the text from two very different perspectives. We’re not much into the Doc hypot, form criticism, source criticism, or redaction in any way at all. The linguistic evidence, as we see it, is that the whole of the HB is post-exilic.
July 22, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Rob Kashow
I’m really not sure how we’re misunderstanding each other.
The first person to physically write or orally transmit the Gen 1 text was living at least in the Land or just before they entered the Land. So the text was always read this way by all communities that read Torah. If this is correct it is what the Hebrew always meant. I’m not jumping to the BH lexicon. I referred to the lexicon because they correclty observe that erets refers to the promised land in genesis. Even if you say Genesis (in Hebrew) is written in the post-exilic it would still have a promised-land-centric perspective and so the lexical data would lean in favor taking the article to refer to ‘the land’ aka ‘promised land.’ I find this indeed reason enough. Though I think it’s difficult to tell either way.
July 23, 2009 at 2:45 am
Jason
Is this the interpretation Sailhamer takes?
July 23, 2009 at 3:19 am
Rob Kashow
congratulations, Jason, you are the winner. Actually it really wasn’t a contest at guessing whose view it was.
Essentially, I struggle with the use of the waw in such an interpretation, but nonetheless, there you are.
July 23, 2009 at 3:20 am
Rob Kashow
I’m not sure if he would translate it just as I, but something similar for sure.
July 23, 2009 at 4:25 am
Jason
If only there were a prize! I’ve not read Sailhamer’s commentary (or anyone else who interprets Gen. 1.1-2ff this way), but a good friend of mine talked about it a lot. His Hebrew prof advocated this understanding and he (my friend) seemed to be persuaded by it. It’s attractive to me, but I haven’t exegeted the text myself, so I am hesitant to weigh in on grammatical or other matters yet. I’ll be following this discussion though–should be interesting.
July 23, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Michael
If it comes from Sailhamer, why is there is discussion. We already know it’s off base if comes from Sailhamer.
July 23, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Rob Kashow
ahhh, you might think so if it were something theological. but when it comes to Hebrew the man is as sharp as can be. it’s kind of like wallace. he has goofy theology, but when it comes to the language he knows his stuff.
July 23, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Jason
I’ve not read anything by Wallace I would consider “goofy” theologically. Could you elaborate?
July 24, 2009 at 12:36 am
Rob Kashow
Jason,
Part of my comment was in jest, part of it is true. There are maybe a few things goofy in his GGBB, but not many. Mike and I have had him for several classes in Greek and I’m speaking of a few of his perspectives on different issues. Though most might not view them as goofy. In short, at times he can be unashamedly reformed in his interpretations. Which is fine. There’s also something in John with the Lamb of God, but that would require quite the lengthy response.
July 24, 2009 at 1:43 am
Jason
Rob: I see. Are you still a student at DTS? I ask because I plan to start PhD work in NT there in the spring.
July 24, 2009 at 1:48 am
Rob Kashow
Yes. Congrats, that’s great, Jason. Whenever your on campus shoot me an email, we can grab a cup of coffee.
July 24, 2009 at 2:41 am
Jason
Look forward to it! If you don’t mind me probing about all your academic info, what program are you in?
July 24, 2009 at 3:03 am
Rob Kashow
send me an email. robkashow at gmail dot com
July 24, 2009 at 5:25 am
Rod
The Promised land? seriously rob?
Okay, I am definitely my translation of the gospel of John, Chapter 1 now.
July 24, 2009 at 5:54 am
Rob Kashow
yes seriously. trace the use of the word in Genesis and you’ll see. but remember, i didn’t say i subscribe to this view. i didn’t follow what you said about john, there must be a typo in there somewhere.
July 24, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Rod
I meant I am definitely posting my translation of John 1. One liberal, generous translation deserves another.
October 16, 2009 at 9:51 am
clayboy » The land of real life: a round-up of the blogosphere this week
[...] Rob Kashow gets himself beaten up in the comments for suggesting the translation “Land” instead of “earth” in [...]