I do enjoy, and appreciate, the CEB (which is why I’m taking part in their ‘blog tour’). But it sometimes misses the boat. For example
When God began to create the heavens and the earth— the earth was without shape or form, it was dark over the deep sea, and God’s wind swept over the waters (Gen 1:1-2).
First, the verb translated ‘began to create’ is a perfect tense verb in Hebrew, not an ingressive. It can only properly be translated ‘created’ implying, as only a perfect verb can, past action with present implications. That is, God created and creation continues to this moment. Certainly not, however, ‘God began to create’. I suspect this rendition was chosen as an accommodation to modern scientific theory. Such theory may or may not be right but there is no reason at all to believe for half a second that the author of Genesis didn’t believe God created creation directly through personal intervention and not through some modern idea of evolutionary process.
Second, ‘over the deep sea’ is both cumbersome and unnecessary and even a bit misleading since ‘al peney tehom’ is literally ‘over the face of the deep’ and speaks not of the ocean per se but the ‘dark depths’ – that is, the uncontrolled, unexplored, mysterious realm where men couldn’t go. The sea is certainly included here but it isn’t just the sea that houses the formlessness and emptiness the author has in mind.
Third, and finally, ‘God’s wind swept over the waters’ is unfortunate. Better would be ‘God’s breath hovered over the waters’ because it isn’t some sort of wind described here but the breath, the life giving power of God who breaths not just into the nostrils of man but over the whole of chaotic creation itself.
So, in somewhat of an amplified rendering, we end up with
‘By way of beginning: God created everything. The earth was mis-shaped and chaotic and then God exhaled on it.’
It has nothing to do with modern science. Many scholars have suggested this translation, considering as key factors (1) how the initial phrase is to be pointed, and thus whether it means “In the beginning…” or “At the beginning of…”; and (2) the evidence suggesting that the ancient Israelites did not think in terms of creatio ex nihilo, making this a start of God bringing order to chaos, rather than an absolute beginning of all things.
That said, the translation is not without difficulties, and John Walton makes a case for the traditional rendering in his latest book.
fair enough. so how do you render בָּרָא in this context?
I wasn’t a fan of the CEB’s choices here, either–though the NRSV helped to pave the way for the “God’s wind” translation (to be fair, the NRSV has “a wind from God” rather than “God’s wind”. I’m not sure that makes it a lot better).
Anyway, it’s a shame that a translation with so much going for it begins so dubiously.
I’ll qualify my last comment by adding “in my opinion.” I am neither a Hebrew scholar, nor the son of a Hebrew scholar, so I can only speak of personal preferences, which sometimes jibe with traditional wording–but not always. Here, traditional wording wins out for me.
‘wind’ just misses the point and leads most english readers in the wrong direction
Nicely said, Jim
Jim,
You and I may not agree often, but I agree with your criticism of the CEB. I also think the CEB is a good translation and I have recommended it more than once, but as you said, not every translation is perfect.
Claude Mariottini
Here are a couple of online blog posts on this issue, including one that highlights Rashi’s role in arguing for what you find in the CEB.
http://torahmusings.com/2011/04/it’s-all-in-a-word-on-translating-genesis-11-3/
http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/intparsha/bereishit/01-65bereishit.htm
but i didnt ask what someone else thought. i want to know how you would translate it.
I am not sure what I think regarding the different proposed pointings, and you seemed not to have encountered this issue before, and so those both seemed to be reasons to share some links for additional reading.
Those those who argue for pointing the first clause so it means “in the beginning of…” often repoint the second word as bero’ (sorry, I don’t know how to type Hebrew with vowels on this device) so that it can essentially function as a gerund and mean, “In the beginning of God creating the heavens and the earth” or something along those lines.
Again, this is not my argument, just a quick and superficial distillation of the case for this translation.
a- it’s perilous to imagine that i’ve encountered, or not, some argument or other since that requires that you crawl up inside my brain. in fact i’ve ‘heard it all before’ and my dismissal is informed and intentional.
2- you still haven’t told me what you think. why are you so evasive?
I’m not evasive, I honestly don’t have an opinion on this, and since my primary area of expertise is not Semitic linguistics, I would rather remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
You said in your initial post that you suspected that this rendering had something to do with modern science. I apologize if my interpretation of that statement seemed to be an attempt at mind reading. I intended only to make sense of what you actually wrote, nothing more.
no need to apologize! i still think that many translators, even subconciously, allow a modern or post modern worldview to influence their work. i still think that the author of gen. 1 believed that god LITERALLY created the cosmos by simple speech. ‘began to create’ leaves just enough room in the minds of many modern readers to take the next step and see creation as process (expanded beyond 6 literal days).
again, whether or not the author of gen 1 was right is immaterial. HE believed it.