. . . it has been known at least from the Middle
Ages—for example, in the commentary of the eleventh-century Jewish scholar
Rashi—that from the linguistic and exegetical point of view this reading of
Gen. 1:1–2 is not the preferred option in strictly exegetical terms. This
conclusion is acknowledged in several major modern translations (nrsv, jps,
nab, neb, but not reb).
Since the Hebrew text was consonantal, vowels could be added to justify reading
the first sentence as a main clause, as in the traditional reading, or the
first verse could be parsed as a subordinate temporal clause, with the main
clause beginning either with v. 2 (as in nrsv
and nab) or in v. 3 (as in jps). A further clarification of a more
technical nature should be added. The first word, běrēʾšît, comprises a noun (rēʾšît,
‘beginning’) with a prepositional prefix, therefore (‘in the beginning’), which
normally forms part of a genitival phrase (‘in the beginning of something’) as
in all other occurrences in the Hebrew Bible, for the most part dealing with
the beginning of a reign (Jer. 26:1; 27:1; 28:1; 49:34). The reading most
consistent with classical Hebrew usage would therefore, translating literally,
run as follows: ‘In the beginning of God’s creating the sky and the earth’,
with the principal clause to follow.
Decisions about translation must also take
account of literary context, and from this perspective it is clear that the
alternative proposed is to be preferred. Genesis 1 belongs to the genre of
cosmogony, narratives about world origins, and ancient cosmogonic myths in that
culture area begin by describing the way it was at the time of the first
creation, only then proceeding to the creation itself. In the canonical
Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish,
for example, the list of what was or was not there at the beginning, or what
had or had not been done, occupies the first eight lines of the first tablet.
Only then are the first gods created (Heidel 1951: 18). The same pattern is
adopted at the beginning of the garden of Eden story. A subordinate clause
lists three things absent at the beginning—vegetation, rain and agricultural
workers—and one thing present—a mysterious source of water coming up from the
ground (Gen. 2:4b–6). It should not surprise us that the priest–author retains
this narrative feature, if in a more subdued and tacit form, adapting the genre
to his own theological agenda.
It is in any case a mistake to coerce an
ancient text to conform to what is essentially a philosophical and theological
theory. As we read on, we see that the author is thinking of creation as the
production out of chaos of an ordered, liveable environment for the human race.
A creation account is necessarily narrative, and it is characteristic of
narrative that one event follows another. Creation follows chaos, but chaos is
logically rather than chronologically prior to order. We shall see how the
description of the great deluge as an event of un-creation reveals that chaos
is a recurring possibility; it is inseparably constituent of physical reality.
In this respect, therefore, Genesis 1 follows the same pattern as the Mesopotamian
and Greek myths of origin. Unlike Enuma
Elish and creation myths originating in Canaan, however, the biblical
version does not represent creation as the sequel to a victory of the Creator
Deity over the forces of chaos, not explicitly at any rate, but the holding in
check of life-threatening forces—chaos, darkness, the storm wind. If we wish,
we may read this as the first victory in a war which is destined to be
prolonged as long as humanity lasts. (Joseph Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-Creation, Re-Creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis
1-11 [London: T&T Clark, 2011], 30-31)
Further Reading
