Genesis – Understanding Creation: ch 1-2:3

Rashi and new and ancient translations re: Ch 1 verse 1

It has become common since the mid-20^th century for Jewish translators -- who believe the Chumash is not God’s words dictated to Moses but rather the product of more than 4 different human authors -- to use Rashi’s ‘understanding’ that the first verse runs 2 ½ verses long instead of the seven words that Jewish tradition and the Masoretes (6^th to 10^th century C.E,) have passed on.

And, regrettably, the traditional Orthodox Art Scroll Chumash has done so as well.

Non- Orthodox Jewish translations

Below are a sample of the opening texts of the changed English translations.

I include the landmark Jewish Publication Society’s 1917 ‘traditional’ translation, followed by the Society’s revised text of 1962 and others who have similarly switched to Rashi.

JPS Tanakh 1917

1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 

2  Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep;           and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. 

3  And God said: ‘Let there be light.’ And there was light. 

JPS 1962 

1  When God began to create heaven and earth
2  -- earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep                    and a wind from God sweeping over the water –                                                                 
3  God said, “Let there be Light”; and there was light.

Everett Fox  The Five Books of Moses, 1995

1.“At the beginning of God’s creating of the heavens and the earth,   
2. when the earth was wild and waste. Darkness over the face of Ocean, 
    rushing spirit of God hovering over the face of waters –
3. God said: Let there be light! And there was light.

The Reform movement’s edition by Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut, The Torah: a Modern Commentary (1981) repeats the JPS (1962) text.

Richard Elliott Friedman in his The Bible with Sources Revealed (2003), has a similar translation though he prefers  “At the start …”.

Why the change?

The JPS (1962), on the first page of its Preface, states the highly revised edition was due to two factors:  

Modern readers had difficulty with the archaic words and language of the 1917 edition which itself used the Shakespearean English of the King James version from 1611.

And the one it mentions first was to update the understanding of the text in light of archaeological findings, and more recent biblical scholarship/criticism.

As for the major change to the opening verses of Genesis, it simply in footnote #1 states that others translate it as “In the beginning God created …”

It is only with W. Gunther Plaut’s (1981) Reform edition and extended commentary that this change in the JPS is explained. (p. 18, footnote 1.)

As Plaut explains, the JPS new translation – which makes the first 2 ½ verses into one sentence - follows Rashi,  and is used instead of the KJV “In the beginning God created ..”  “as it is not likely the [human] biblical author was concerned with this problem –“; 

Namely, that God created the world out of nothing, ex nihilo as implied by the KJV and Hebrew Mesoretic traditional versification.

Plaut goes on to clarify that the new ‘direction’ of the JPS (1962) and the other translations noted above is in line with biblical criticism and the belief that Genesis’ creation chapter 1 is derived from the Mesopotamian creation tale recorded in the 7^th century BCE text,  Enuma Elish:  which, like the Egyptian creation myths, have water and land as eternally existing and living, primordial nature gods.  (p. 24)

Put simply, the Jewish traditional versification and Christian English translations going back to the King James Bible (1611) have been rejected as their common short opening verse: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” clearly suggests the world was created ex nihilo, out of nothing, and this was inconsistent with the dominant Mesopotamian (or Egyptian) world views; and , therefore, was an ‘impossibility’ and incorrect ‘reading’.  

Such a mindset among Bible critics and the above translators is itself illogical and ludicrous.

The Bible text of Genesis Ch 1 and Creation is so radically and fundamentally different a theology – monotheism --  and view of nature, that to claim it must be derived from Mesopotamian mythology (or even Egyptian) is beyond belief.

Where is the monotheism of Genesis ch 1 in Mesopotamian (or Egyptian) mythology?: 

a single and sole deity who created the world and all its plant and animal and human inhabitants as an act of spontaneous kindness and with joy: “It was good.” And  “It was very good.”

In contrast, the Enuma Elish creation myth is a tale of incessant war and brutality among countless gods who fight for domination and carry out fratricide, patricide and matricide in emulation of mankind’s worst instincts. 

The primordial ‘father’ god, Apsu, is murdered in his sleep, and Babylon’s  patron god Marduk ultimately gains hegemony and power by defeating and killing the primordial water and mother goddess Tiamat.

The world is created when Marduk splits open Tiamat’s body and from her upper half  creates the sky and rain/snow waters above,  and from her lower half, the earth, oceans etc.  

And soon thereafter he sets many of the gods who supported him: the sun and moon and stars to shine in her upper half , the sky[1].

Such is the Mesopotamian ‘prototype’ advocated by biblical criticism.

Anyone who cannot recognize how different Genesis ch1 is from the above Mesopotamian vision has blinkers on.

And the central biblical criticism premise: that no one can -- by Divine inspiration or otherwise   -- break away from the mindset and ideas of the dominant culture(s) is clearly refuted by human history and innovation. 

Think Copernicus and Galileo and Columbus and Einstein.

Think the Alphabet with its original 22 letters: so simple that even a child could learn to read and write in weeks compared to hieroglyphics and Egyptian hieratic or Mesopotamian cuneiform that took years to master with their over 600 complex symbols.

We and the Phoenicians used this far superior writing system since at least 1500 B.C.E. while the great Egypt and Mesopotamia continued in their ‘old school’ ways for another 1000 years.

So Rashi, unfortunately, has given a ‘road map’ and 'historic credibility' to these anti-Bible translations.

Art Scroll position

Here is the Art Scroll Chumash’s translation:

            “ In the beginning of God’s creating the heavens and the earth 

2                    – when the earth was astonishingly empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep,        and the Divine Presence hovered upon the surface of the waters –

3                  God said, “let there be light,” and there was light."

The Art Scroll, which is strictly Orthodox, explains at the outset (p. xiv) that the editors have decided to follow Rashi in all of its translations.

It justifies this by noting Rashi has been the most popular commentary for over 900 years and quotes Ramban that Rashi is the most distinguished of all commentators and like the firstborn.

However, Ramban disagrees with Rashi on the very first verse of Genesis - as the Art Scroll notes[2] - and Ibn Erza constantly disagrees with Rashi as well[3].

What makes Rashi’s commentary so special and beloved is not that Rashi, contrary to some pious believers, had more of the "ruach hakodesh" (divine sprit) than other great torah scholars before and after him, but rather the popularity of his commentary is based on his constant inclusion of ancient midrashic interpretations and other sources.  With which he at times disagrees:  with his famous lead in : but the peshat (ordinary meaning) is ...

Put simply, there would be no need for any disagreement or rejection of a Rashi ‘answer’  by  post-Rashi commentaries if Rashi was recognized by Torah scholars as 'always right'.

Secondly, Jewish tradition favors the majority opinion whether in the ancient Sanhedrin, poskim or scholarship.  And here Art Scroll even concedes in its commentary on Genesis verse 1 that most commentaries disagree with Rashi on the Genesis verse 1 issue.

Nevertheless it follows Rashi in its translation. Namely, converting the traditional 2 ½ verses into  one opening sentence.

Even the Art Scroll’s effort to cite ibn Ezra as supporting Rashi’s reading, (p, 3, comment to verse 1) is also not accurate.  Ibn Ezra merely states that Rashi has a point:  that the word   בראשית is prepositional and normally has an explicit object word for completion, but he also points out that ellipsis (an implied object clear from the context) is also possible[4].  

That does not constitute an endorsement of Rashi.

So, for the Art Scroll to take a position that Rashi's view(s) should be followed when he is in the clear minority is not justifiable and contrary to Jewish tradition.

The Art Scroll’s monolithic attitude on Rashi is especially lamentable on the matter of what constitutes the first verse or sentence of Scriptures and Creation.

The Challenge

Rashi was clearly aware that Jewish tradition ended the first verse after the seventh word. 

I say 'tradition' because all Torah texts - all torah scrolls - are a series of words without any punctuation: no periods, commas, question marks, exclamation points or quotation marks.  Only extra blank spaces between larger sections.

Consequently, learning to read a Torah scroll - including the proper vowel sounds (which were not written out) and the complex melodies (with 22 different notes and combinations) for public chanting (also not marked) was and still is a major challenge requiring extensive training under a learned teacher; passing on the 'tradition' orally for over 2000 years by Rashi's time.

So the idea that the first verse is more than seven words long is possible from the unmarked text.

Mesoretic reading

The division of Torah scroll words into sentences as found in printed copies is the work of the Masoretes (6^th to 10^th century C.E.).

Concern arose that the proper reading of torah scrolls: of the Divine words and their messages, was in danger.  The Jewish people were dispersed across the known world: from Spain to India to North Africa, and reliance on the proper, oral transmission from teacher to student was no longer ensured.

This fear that led torah scholars and even entire families to tackle the challenge of creating a ‘guide for (public)  readers that ‘filled in the blanks’.

They devised the vowel marks – below and above the Holy consonants -- and  melody notation – again above and below -- and, finally, added one piece of punctuation, the highly visible diamond colon, as a period.

As well, in marginal notes they wrote outs the proper reading of words whose written spelling is different than how they are to be pronounced (called Keri Uch Teev).

Surviving Mesoretic texts

Only two of their bound ‘guides for public recitation’ have survived: the complete Leningrad Codex (colophon 1008 C.E.)[5] and the incomplete, somewhat older Aleppo Codex which Maimonides has used [6] and which is missing Genesis Ch 1 among other sections.

The Leningrad Mesoretic text makes clear in two separate ways that the first verse of the Bible, as passed on through ancient tradition, is only seven Hebrew words long. 

·       The sentence ending double colon period appears after the seventh word.

And the cantillation or melody/ chanting marks also confirm the seven word length.  The marking for word seven, ארץ , is a lower vertical line called פסוק סוף = “end of sentence”.

Rashi’s view and justification

Rashi had two difficulties with an opening verse of seven words. 

The fifth word is שמים (heaven/skies) and it precedes the word ארץ (land) though the text makes clear the ארץ (land) was created on Day 1 and שמים only on Day 2 (verses 7-9).

More importantly, the very first word of the Bible, בראשית, is a prepositional word and requires a word object to complete the ‘thought’.

Rashi could not come up with any ‘implied’ object from the context: a common technique called ellipsis. And so, with palpable frustration and reluctantly, after citing numerous examples from Scriptures in support, he concluded the first verse runs 2 ½ verses long and not just seven words.

In fact, the early C.E. midrash, Berashut Rabba, sees the creation of light as the first act of God, and therefore considers the opening verse to run three (3) full traditional verses.  So Rashi is not all alone.

But the difficulties created by the long verse readings are enormous and for those unwilling to read all of this length blog, let me cut to the simple solution Rashi missed.

The ‘missing’ word was identified by Sforno (died 1550): the word TIME. 

Namely, the text should be understood as:

                    “In the beginning [of Time] God created …” 

Why Rashi was incorrect

The reasons why a longer first sentence are unacceptable and unjustified by the text are literary, grammatical, tradition and the evidence from ancient and even outside sources.

Below is Rashi’s view of the Mesoretic versification in English translation                               (Sefaria, Genesis 1:1).   

If, however, you wish to explain it in its plain sense, explain it thus At the beginning of the Creation of heaven and earth when the earth was without form and void and there was darkness, God said, “Let there be light”.

 Literary grounds

Rashi’s reading has major and obvious difficulties:

1      1. It  makes the first verse not 7 words long but a very long 25 words -- even in                          compact  Hebrew.

2.     It requires the verb ברה to be read as a participle and not a main verb. 

3.     It also requires the ‘first verse’ to have imbedded the 3 subordinate ideas or                          clauses of the traditional verse 2.  

4.   Finally, Rashi’s ‘object’ to complete  בראשית   is an entire, 2 clause sentence: God Said: “Let there be light.”   But the examples he or ibn Ezra find have a single word -- usually a noun, as the object.

All of these simple observations indicate Rashi’s ‘reading’ is incorrect.

Aural intent and Audience

Rashi also seems to forget that Torah scrolls are meant to be read aloud to an assembly of people none of whom would have a copy of the text in hand to ‘follow along’ at their own pace.

Today, thanks to Gutenberg and the printing press, it is possible, but not so for millennia prior to the mid-15 century, when only rare and costly hand copied texts were available.

So having a 25 word first sentence, with at least 5 ideas to ‘juggle’, and in a convoluted structure with 3 imbedded subordinate clauses, makes the Bible start with a leaden thump. 

Such an awkward, clumsy and confusing start is not how great literature begins.

As Robert Alter has recently reminded his follow biblical criticism colleagues in his The Art of Biblical Narrative ( 2011), the texts of the Chumash are as well crafted and elegant as any by Cervantes, Fielding and Dickens ( p. 165) or a Tolsty and Henry James (p. 25).

Finally, such a complex sentence is also not the norm.  Short sentences and, at most, compound sentences with no subordination is the rule in the Chumash:                              WWWW and then  XXXXX   and then YYYY  and then ZZZ.

Not  WW-XX-YY-ZZ-WW or other complex combinations.

These are basic rules of any text designed to be read aloud.

Ancient translations

Rashi’s reading is also not supported by other, far more ancient translations which constitute independent ‘checks’.

Targum Onkelos (c. 100 C.E.)

This Aramaic translation has been popular since its creation around 100 C.E. and has  been included in print editions – alongside  Rashi – for centuries.

A quick look at any copy of Onkelos shows he agreed with the Mesoretic versification: verse 1  is just seven words long  and with full main verb.

Older Evidence

Early 4th century C.E. - The Latin Vulgate bible 

The Christian Jerome, for his landmark Latin translated, the Vulgate, used both the Greek Septuagint text of the Jewish community of Egypt (3rd century B.C.E.) and Hebrew scrolls of the entire Tanach.

Although fluent in Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, he too would have faced the challenges of a Hebrew text without vowels and punctuation marks, and would have had to have the assistance of one or more Jewish torah scholars.

The Vulgate, consequently, is a semi-independent 'check' on Bible's versification.

On Genesis ch 1 it is totally consistent with the Mesoretic tradition.

Genesis 1 Biblia Sacra Vulgata  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=VULGATE

1 In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram.

² Terra autem erat inanis et vacua, et tenebrae erant super faciem abyssi: et spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas.

³ Dixitque Deus: Fiat lux. Et facta est lux.

⁴ Et vidit Deus lucem quod esset bona: et divisit lucem a tenebris.

⁵ Appellavitque lucem Diem, et tenebras Noctem: factumque est vespere et mane, dies unus.

Latin, by Jerome's time, had period punctuation and capitalized the first word of a sentence.

Just looking at the above text shows it is consistent with the Mesoretic tradition and, in fact, Jerome used the flexibility of Latin word order to carefully mimic the Hebrew word order and structure as well.

Jerome’s translation is filled with ‘and’ and  ‘also’ connectives and here he uses three different ones:  et = and; the verb suffix que = and; and autem = also.

Autem is always placed as the second word in a new sentence as Jerome does in Verse 2.

And, of course, all verbs are full main verbs: no participles.

3rd century B.C.E. - Septuagint

The Greek translation of the Tanach used by the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria and Egypt since the 3rd century B.C.E. also supports the Mesoretic tradition of versification.

ΕΝ ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν. 2 ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος, καὶ σκότος ἐπάνω τῆς ἀβύσσου, καὶ πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος. 3 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεός· γενηθήτω φῶς· καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς. 4 καὶ εἶδεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ φῶς, ὅτι καλόν· καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ Θεὸς ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σκότους. 5 καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ φῶς ἡμέραν καὶ τὸ σκότος ἐκάλεσε νύκτα. καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωΐ, ἡμέρα μία. 6 Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Θεός· γενηθήτω στερέωμα ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ ἔστω διαχωρίζον ἀνὰ μέσον ὕδατος καὶ ὕδατος.

Greek sentences do not start with capitals but there are periods to show the end of sentences.  And the Septuagint uses only full verbs. 

Therefore, these three ancient translations show that Rashi's reading of 21/2 verses was not the 'understanding' of these three oldest, foreign language translations going back a millennia or more by Rashi’s time.

Lastly, all three understood the Hebrew word בְּרֵאשִׁית as a 'complete thought' or ellipsis.

Onkelos used ." In the past"  = בקדמין

  Jeromeused In principio  = In the beginning (noun)

The Septuagent used ΕΝ ἀρχῇ= in the beginning (noun)   (http://biblehub.com/greek/746.htm)

Conclusion

Only the Mesoretic versification of Genesis ch 1 is warranted.

The Masoretes in their vowel sound notation, double diamond period and cantillation marking made clear what was ancient Jewish tradition on this issue.

Their view is supported by both independent Jewish and non-Jewish translations that go back a millennia before Rashi.

And Rashi’s reading has so many flaws in terms of the normal style of the Chumash and it would make public reading confusing to its audience.

The English wording of the King James Bible (1611) "In the beginning .. " has an onomatopoeic quality.  “The three words, including the multi-syllabic word choice of “beginning”,  create an audible, three second duration: aptly creating the ‘feel’ of  TIME starting.

Jewish translators – both religious and secular – need to rethink their abandonment of the traditional English and Hebrew versification. 

Secular scholars should not ‘twisted’ the Chumash to fit into a foreign culture with radically different values and world view.  And to ‘manipulate’ Rashi: to justify such an alien reading – a reading that they, as bible scholars, should know is contrary to basic Bible style and rules of public recitation, is unacceptable and intellectually dishonest.

 And pious Jews should not put Rashi on so lofty a pedestal.

Jewish tradition (Masoretes), other great torah scholars before (Onkelos) and after Rashi (Ramban and others), and the simple rules of Bible style and public recitation should have made clear that Rashi was wrong here.

---

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En%C3%BBma_Eli%C5%A1

[2] P. 3 Commentary to verse 1

[3] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_ibn_Ezra section on Influence on biblical criticism

[4] https://www.sefaria.org/Ibn_Ezra_on_Genesis.1.1.2?lang=bi

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_Codex

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleppo_Codex