. . . there is no
question that the dependent clause translation is cumbersome. However, as
astonishing as it may seem, far from being an argument against the dependent
clause translation, I actually believe the rareness of its syntax is [a] powerful
argument in its favor. How can that be? This wordy style conforms
beautifully with Genesis’ original literary context—the style in which other
surrounding cultures in Mesopotamia began their creation stories.
The Babylonian
creation story Enuma Elish likely dates as far back as the second
millennium BC. Since biblical scholars widely believe that Genesis 1 was edited
during or after Judah’s Babylonian captivity, it is plausible that Genesis 1’s
editor(s) were familiar with it. Interestingly, tablet I, lines 1-10 opens the
Babylonian account with similar complex back-dropping following a dependent
clause as we have observed in Genesis 1:
Dependent temporal clause |
When on high heaven was not named, |
Parenthetical information |
primeval Apus [fresh water] was their progenitor,
life-giving Tiamat [salt water], the bearer of all; their waters together
they mingled, no canebrake, yet formed, no marsh discoverable-- |
Main clause |
the gods were given shape within them, |
As the Assyriologist
E.A. Speiser points out, like Genesis 1:1-3, this passage begins with a
dependent temporal clause and follows with 6 lines of parenthetical clauses
before arriving at the main clause in lines 9-10 (Genesis: Introduction,
Translation and Notes [New York: Doubleday, 1964], 12, 19). Overly complex?
Or literary style?
There is another Akkadian
creation text that scholars widely recognize as having important similarities
to the Genesis creation account—Atrahasis. Like Genesis, Atrahasis
has humanity created from the earth to cultivate the ground and features a
description of the Great Flood. Incredibly, it too opens with a dependent
clause followed by a parenthetical clause before it arrives at its main clause:
Dependent temporal clause |
When the gods like men |
Parenthetical information |
The toil of the gods was great, |
Main clause |
The Seven great Anunaki [gods] |
Another creation
story discovered in the ruined capital of the Assyrian empire called KAR 4
dates to about 800 BC. Its opening lines also take the general literary style
we have been observing. Again, those who allege that Genesis 1 should not be
translated as a dependent clause because its resulting parenthetical lines are
awkwardly long should observe where this same structure is several times longer
in this creation text:
Dependent temporal clause |
When heaven had been separated from the
earth, the distant trusty twin, |
Parenthetical information |
(And) the mother of the goddesses had
been brought into being; |
Main clause |
(Then) Anu, Enlil, šamaš, (and) Ea, |
. . . You may have
heard before that Genesis contains a so-called “second creation account” in
Genesis 2:4b-7. Incredibly, even that passage follows the general format
scholars are endorsing for translating Genesis 1:1-3. That is, like Genesis
1:1-3, it opens with a dependent temporal clause followed by an extended
parenthetical insertion before it reaches the main clause:
Dependent temporal clause |
4b When the Lord God made earth and
heaven-- |
Parenthetical information |
5 Now no plant of the field was yet in
the earth and no herb of the field had yet to grow, since the Lord God had
not caused it to rain upon the earth and there was no man to work the ground |
Main clause |
7 The Lord God formed man from dust of
the ground . . . |
Looking at this
passage, the respected Hebraist Bill T. Arnold agrees in the New Cambridge Bible
Commentary, “The syntax of 2:4b-7 is not unlike that of 1:1-3” (Genesis,
New Cambridge Bible Commentary [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009],
56).
So, the dependent
clause opening of Genesis is indeed odd and cumbersome when we compare it
across the syntax of the Bible as a whole, but it is typical in a
generic sense when we compare it to other creation narratives from Genesis 1’s
ancient Mesopotamian literary context and the “second creation account” occurring
in the immediately following chapter. (Ben Stanhope, (Mis)Interpreting
Genesis: How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient Near Eastern
Context of the Bible [Scarab Press, 2020], 76-80)