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-20th
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 (6th
to 10th 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 7th
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.
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 - and Ibn Erza constantly
disagrees with Rashi as well.
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.
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
(6th to 10th 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.) and the incomplete, somewhat
older Aleppo Codex which Maimonides has used 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.
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)
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.
