Several scholar-friends and colleagues graciously have written guest posts for the blog to celebrate our tenth anniversary. I am posting one a week and we will gather all of them together down the line to make them available as a group. This week’s contribution comes from James Tabor, retired Professor of Christian Origins and Bible from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (a scholar many of you will know) who has written a large number of popular books, along with serious scholarship, and most recently his own fresh translation of the book of Genesis.
This post is especially interesting: James deals with problems of translating the Hebrew Bible that I bet you don’t even realize are problems.
******************************
What is the best-known verse in the Bible—one that millions could quote immediately by heart? Christians might say John 3:16—after all, one even sees placards and signs reading “John 3:16” at sporting stadiums! But I think the very first verse of the Bible—Genesis 1:1—most likely would win the universal familiarity content:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
I have a replica of the Geneva Bible, published in 1560, that was the standard up through the 17th century—even over the King James for a time. It has a very similar translation:
In the beginning God created heaven and the earth.
What few realize is that most scholars now consider this translation not only faulty but seriously misleading. The problem is that these older translations, now so enshrined in our memories, have ignored an important element of grammar—namely that the first word, בראשית/bereshit—is in the construct state, making it a temporal participle, connected to what follows. A good parallel is Jeremiah 26:1, which clearly means, “At the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim . . .,” or “When Jehoiakim began to reign . . .” with what follows describing the state of things at such a beginning. The opening verses of Genesis clearly reflect the same grammatical construction.
In other words, it is not a simple declarative sentence about the creation of everything by God from nothing. It is rather a description of the state of the “skies and the land” when God began to create things—bringing order out of the water covered earth that was without form and empty.
I well remember when the New English Bible was published in the 1960s when I was in college that its translation of this single verse cause great consternation on the part of traditional Bible readers. The “liberal scholars” were trying to water down the Creation Story, we were told. Everyone knew Genesis 1:1 was about the “origin of the universe,” to put it in modern terms.
Gradually other modern translations followed suit, including the Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures (1985), and of course Fox, Alter, and others. Even the New Revised Standard Version, and its predecessor, the Revised Standard Version, included a variant note: “When God began to create the heavens and the earth…” The notes of the New English Translation (NET) Bible, hedge a bit, taking that first word as in the absolute state—but then in a note explaining that the construct state is nothing to get worried about—as if they prefer it but can’t bring themselves to put it in the text. There are a number of ways to bring out the sense of that opening verse but I finally opted for the following:
At the first of ELOHIM of creating the sky and the land–
Verses 2-3 then follow in describing the chaotic state of things when “God” began to bring about the order that is described in the rest of the text.
Translations must sell, no matter how accurate they claim to be, and changing the first verse of the Bible is not a good marketing strategy—to say the least!
I recently published a new English translation of the Book of Genesis with notes—the first volume of the Transparent English Bible (TEB)It is available on Amazon in all formats, and you can look inside and browse to get an idea of my approach.
There is an ancient Jewish adage regarding translating the Scriptures, “One who translates a verse literally is misrepresenting the text, but one who adds anything of his own is a blasphemer.” Modern translators of the Bible continue to echo, in more sophisticated debate, the dilemma of this ancient bit of wisdom. The literal method of translation seeks to convey an exact sense of the words and the structure of the original language, while the paraphrase, or “dynamic equivalent” method, purposely recasts the essential “thought” of the original into the natural idiom and flow of the second language. The problem is that an overly naïve literalism easily becomes nonsense, while “recasting thought” can end up obscuring or even altering the richness of the original text. The TEB is decidedly on the “literal” side of this spectrum, although the concept of transparency better conveys its theory and method.
The following examples—some of my favorites, taken directly from the TEB translation of Genesis, allow one to see the many important ways this new translation differs from the New International Version and the New Revised Standard Version, the two best-selling modern English translations.
NIV: “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.”
NRSV: “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.”
- TEB: “Let the waters swarm a swarm of living life-breathers and let the flyer fly upon the land, upon the face of the expanse of the skies.” (1:20)
Here are three examples of poetic consonance in one sentence: with Hebrew nouns and verbs echoing one another: “swarm a swarm” “living life-breathers” and “let the flyer fly.” Comparing translations, the TEB is not only transparently beautiful but it is more literal in reflecting an accurate approximation of the original Hebrew terms. These “life-breathers” are creatures, no doubt, but their distinguishing characteristic is possession of the “living life-breath.” It is this factor that then binds the birds, land animals, and human beings together, as explicitly stated in v. 30. Also, although “birds” is likely intended by the Hebrew word “flyer,” the word itself has a more generic meaning that the TEB retains.
Throughout the TEB one constantly encounters refreshing and fascinating idioms that are found in the original Hebrew. For example in Genesis 29:1 we read: “And Jacob lifted his two feet, and walked toward the land of the sons of the east “ The NRSV has: “Then Jacob went on his journey, and came to the land of the people of the east,” while the NIV has: “Then Jacob continued on his journey and came to the land of the eastern peoples.” In Genesis 12:9 the TEB reads: “And Abraham pulled up stakes, walking, and pulling up stakes toward the Negev,” The NRSV simply has: “And Abram journeyed on by stages toward the Negev,” while the NIV has “Then Abram set out and continued towards the Negev.” When you get up early in Hebrew you “cause to shoulder up” (see Gen 22:3), a reference to packing up and loading the animals for a journey. All three versions are understandable in terms of the basic meaning, but the TEB offers the English reader a glimpse into the colorful way that Hebrew actually expresses such common ideas.
The Biblical texts at times can be extremely repetitious, both in narrative style and vocabulary. Often translators are tempted to “smooth things out” a bit, forcing the original languages to conform more closely to modern English usage. Genesis 2:23 reads: (TEB) “This one, this time—bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh! This one will be called woman, because from a man this one was taken.” In Hebrew the feminine demonstrative pronoun (“this one”) is repeated three times in a single sentence. Genesis 11:6 (TEB) says: “This they begin to do, and now nothing is restrained from them of all that they have planned to do.” Both the NIV and the NRSV put “nothing will be impossible for them,” which is surely the meaning, and even much conventional English, but it removes the “flavor and flow” of the Hebrew text.
This volume is a perfect companion to Bart Ehrman’s teaching series on the book of Genesis. Professor Arthur Droge, who has produced what I consider to be the best translation of the Quran in English—also with notes, offers this evaluation of this new translation: “Finally, a truly transparent translation! I have taught biblical texts for almost 25 years and have longed for a translation that didn’t pull any punches when it came to the difficult passages, or that didn’t try to “spin” the meaning of the text in the interests of later theology and doctrine (whether Jewish or Christian). Tabor’s translation of Genesis renders the Hebrew not just with unparalleled accuracy and fidelity to the text, it also offers readers a sense of the unfamiliar elegance and strange power of the original. Beautifully conceived and executed, Tabor’s translation is the result of a lifetime of critical learning and scholarly acumen. It is also a courageous undertaking. I have no doubt that it will quickly become the standard.”
Note: For those interested in seeing more of Prof. Tabor’s translation beyond the Book of Genesis he has just published Selections from the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 2000 Press, 2022), now available on Amazon.
Almost perfect timing for me. I started a new bible study beginning in Genesis just a few weeks ago, with the intent of pointing out what most religious folks gloss over or ignore. It has been disturbing for some, amazing for others, and apparently addictive, as no one has fallen out…yet. We’re in chapter 22 now, and I will be switching to the TEB for the duration of Genesis. Try to get done with Exodus by October, OK?-)
Glad to hear Joel…hope you enjoy the freshness. The introduction to the book itself goes into great detail in the various features, how this translation differs from even Fox, Alter, and Friedman–all of whom I like very much. And the notes are very extensive. Exodus in October–probably won’t make that 🙂 as it took ten years to do Genesis–as we spent three years just working out all the methods and principles of translation after an extensive survey of all major English versions. Also doing all the core vocabulary studies for Genesis….but there are samples in the new volume out this week–for a “taste,” of things to come, see link at the bottom of the post.
While I think that the note about translation is accurate, I fear that it neglects to include the understanding of the original writers. From their very limited perspective, the heavens and the earth were indeed everything. The stars and planets were just things in the sky to them even if they might imbue them with some supernatural import. That view, of course, is an entirely subjective and narrow one, and hardly inspired by a deity who would know better, but that is a different matter.
Yes, that is a different, and of course very important, issue, particularly because millions pick up Genesis and read it like a history, geology, or astronomy book! The cosmology is definitely limited to the typical ANE cosmology, found in many texts. But I would still maintain it is not an affirmation of “ex nihilism” in its classic sense in Western theology. It is rather about “order” out of chaos…
I think the life breathers in our study are going to be delighted, though some may lift up their two feet and walk towards the land of forgetfulness.
Ha! Love it…maybe we can begin to speak this way…in some ways it reminds me of native American expression…with rivers “walking” and so forth, very descriptive!
Thank you, Dr. Tabor, for a very interesting and enlightening post! The TEB translations are profoundly beautiful.
I’m hoping that at some point, though, The Book of Genesis might become available at independent bookstores, rather than exclusively on Amazon – ? I checked with my own wonderful local independent bookstore, and they aren’t able to offer it at this time, although they do sell some of your other works.
I am a strong advocate for indie bookstores, and pretty much refuse to buy books from Amazon.
LoreM, I understand that some feel that way but for us Amazon is the best option in terms of a mass worldwide audience, handling all shipping and delivery, returns, accounting, and so forth. My other books are with trade publishers for the most part–but there are drawbacks to that as well.
Thanks for the reply! I do sympathize with the situation authors find themselves in with respect to Amazon. Bezos has done a remarkable job of creating a temple few of us can avoid entering at least occasionally. I’m lucky to live in a community that’s very good at sharing it’s wealth, via numerous “Little Lending Libraries” all over town, and a couple of excellent used bookstores. I’m sure I’ll come across it sooner or later. Your scholarship is much appreciated, wherever I find it!
Brilliant work, Dr Tabor!
Thank you for this. Very eye-opening! So …now there’s another book I have to read!
I just bought TEB “Beginnings” for Kindle. My favorite book of the Bible. Thanx!
In Jer 26:1 bereshit is in construct with “of the reign” – “at the beginning of the reign”
But what’s it in construct with in Gen 1:1?
Isn’t it best understood as “at the beginning of … ‘everything’ “?
No, its connection would be to the following word–Elohim. So something like “At the first of Ehohim creating…a temporal clause. See JPS and other modern translations. BTW, according to the JPS Jewish Study Bible note: In the 11th century, the great Jewish commentator Rashi made a case that the verse functions as a temporal clause.
But doesnt the fact that Gen 1.2 starts with wa (and) mean Gen 1.1 should function as an independent clause?
So something like “in the beginning (of things) god created the heavens and the earth *end of clause* and *new clause* the earth was formless …”
Rather than “in the beginning of god’s creation event and the earth was formless …”
As I noted, I see v. 1 as a temporal clause and v. 2 describing the state of things before any activity…the first activity is v.3.
Great work James. I really enjoyed reading that. Thanks for posting.
I second LoreM’s thoughts about avoiding Amazon.
I recently watched James’s Youtube video about this translation “(Are You Lost in Translation? Reading Genesis in a New Light”, published 9 July 2022), and found it interesting.
There may well be sound theological and philosophical justification for the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, as formulated by Augustine and theologians in subsequent centuries. Would you say there is any exegetical support for the doctrine from Genesis 1 read from a historical-critical perspective?
I would say no…the text is about naming, ordering, bringing structure and designated purpose out of chaos–i.e. this is for this, that is for that, it must stay in its place…having everything “in place” is a core ANE idea in many similar materials. It is what Jonathan Z. Smith, my teacher at Chicago, called the “locative” view, in sharp contrast with the shift in the Hellenistic period to the “utopian,” with humans displaced, strangers in a strange land, fallen into the world of darkness. That view is nowhere found in Genesis so far as I can tell.
James, thank you for your insightful post. I imagine that I know the answer to my following question, but I will still ask for clarity. First the background, Genesis 1:1, if taken literally, describes that mythological waters existed before God began to create the heavens and earth, and similar waters are described in other Ancient Near East creation myths. Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct…see Enuma quotation above. To “name” is to order and designate as to purpose and function–not to bring into existence.
Dr. Tabor, I read recently that the word “dominion” in Genesis 1:26-28 is better translated as “steward”? Is that accurate, and if not, how would you translate it? And thank you for the enlightening work you do.
The verb RADAH (רדה) has a core meaning of rule over, govern, control–of one who has authority or power in a certain realm. The challenge in translating is that we have dozens of words in English that one could choose (govern, rule, have authority, administer, et al. However, the simple verbal root is fairly singular in meaning in Hebrew–you can check its variety of uses in a concordance or program like Accordance or Logos. What we try to do is find a consistent core meaning when possible for any verb and make use of it. There is a preposition…so the meaning seems to be govern in the realm of…The tradition have “dominion” is connected to domain–sphere of rule, so it is not so much wrong as today in English carries the connotation of dominate! Probably because of the KJV and its resulting cultural and social contexts of that time.
Back when I used to argue a lot with Christians who took Genesis literally, I came across a source which made an interesting point against the fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis. The argument was that the Hebrew word translated “subdue” means to conquer and subject and overcome resistance, not simply to reign over, which is a strange thing to say if the world was a paradise before the Fall.
Would this source get any points on your Hebrew exam?
The whole idea of “taking Genesis literally” is of course problematic from the start…in that NO ONE, even the most dire fundamentalist, takes the Bible “literally,” especially Genesis 1-3. Language by its nature is symbolic representation–and in the TEB you will see even more of that, as rivers “walk,” and so forth…so do they have “legs”? But so far as the meaning of RADAH, the best way to get a sense of it, as it can vary quite a bit according to context, is to read all the times in occurs in the Hebrew Bible and pay attention to the contexts. In the end one must nonetheless “interpret.” Which is another misnomer…how many times growing up in the Churches of Christ did I hear preachers and teachers say–We don’t interpret the Bible, we just read what it says!” I guess that works, maybe, for a ten year old–but probably not for a smart one! Any word every pronounced in any language is already “symbolic” for something–the question is what?
Your new books, James Tabor, would make a nice companion to Bart’s recent Genesis course I completed. Really looking forward to reading them!
That was precisely why I chose this topic when I was invited to do an anniversary guest post.
So I guess the best translation of ‘bereshit’, in the time-honoured tradition of a certain literary genre, would be ‘Once upon a time’ …
How does your more literal translation deal with the fact that Elohim is plural?
Personally I am a big fan of the O’Brien thesis whereby the Genesis creation account is linked with the settler’s story in the Sumerian Kharsag tablets. This results in a completely secular translation of Genesis chapter 1. See https://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/genesis.php
Highly original and well worth a look, if only for the interesting translation notes (via the links at the bottom that page).
Bwana, although I don’t think that is a precise equivalent it might be getting close. In terms of comparison, it fits well with the Enuma:
“When on high the heaven had not been names,
Firm ground below had not been called by name…”
Elohim has a singular verb, so is a kind of collective. However, since the TEB is not a “Study Bible” with historical notes, but rather merely linguistic and philological comments, I don’t go into antecedents and cultural influences of the ANE–which are of course varied. The lengthy introduction lays it all out.
Dr. Tabor,
Names of God are tricky. In the TEB, do you translate the Tetragrammaton as LORD, or leave it as-is, or what?
And how do you deal with El Shaddai, in 17:1?
Similarly, Genesis 14 (and other places) refer to “El Elyon”, and nearly all translations render this “God Most High”. But “most high” is not standard English — no one says “Please help me reach that item on the shelf most high,” they say “the highest shelf.” It would seem like El Elyon should be translated “The highest god”, but no one translates it that way. Do you know why translators always use a clunkier, less-standard comparative form here? And how do you translate this phrase in the TEB?
EL Shaddai is the subject of much discussion as the verb can mean to destroy–but also shad can mean nipple–thus the idea of succoring. My choice on all the “names” and designations for deity is to transliterate and then offer notes of possible ways to understand them. This is laid out in the introduction, thus:
YHVH, YAH, ADON, ADONAI, EL, ELOAH, ELOHIM, ELYON, SHADDAI…in all caps. The main intent is not to interpret or even translated, but to allow readers of English to know which terms are being used. The traditional use of LORD, for example in the KJV and many to follow, including the JPS, is very confusing and problematic, in that any form of Lord/LORD is then confused with YHVH, et al.
The first five paragraphs of your post are about the problems with translations of Genesis 1:1. But what is the TEB version of Genesis 1:1? Did I miss it?
Steven, my understanding is laid out in the early paragraphs when I explain the idea of the verbal phrase of the opening construction and offer my analysis. I just added an explicit quotation right after that of the TEB choice of “At the beginning of…” BTW, if you are not opposed to visiting Amazon, as some here are, you can see a good sample of the book, including Genesis 1, in the Look Inside feature.
Prof Tabor I’ve been agitating a little bit for Prof Ehrman to do a standalone translation of the gospel of Mark along these lines. A “transparent” version. He’s not too keen and I understand completely! But if someone else was willing to have a go…
Well I would never venture into that territory with Bart, nor he with me. I think both of us have projects, books, and other teaching efforts set out well into the future…and Bart has surely done his fair share in translating–especially with the wonderful update to the Loeb Classical Library Apostolic Fathers. That said, why not try either Hugh Schonfield’s Authentic New Testament or David Bentley Hart’s The New Testament? I think you will find either or both of them quite refreshing.
Hey James Tabor!
You inspired me to take up Biblical Hebrew in my old age. Your approach to translation inspired and regularly informs my own. I consult your Genesis many times each week.
I was thrilled to see Selections hit Amazon and immediately ordered my copy. I hope, James, that there will be more Selections (or books!), and that they will become available on kindle, as the electronic version is much more helpful to me in my own work.
Many, many thanks! <3
Many thanks John. You will find the TEB is a great help for beginning reading of Hebrew, as it is quite literal, consistent in rendering out verbal roots and resultant nouns and adjectives, and Genesis, being narrative, is a great place to begin just reading!
We were not able to do Kindle for the Selections from the Hebrew Bible,” because for such sample we wanted to keep the footnotes at the bottom…and needed a PDF that would keep all the diacritical marks. Enjoy!
Dr. Tabor:
I watched your lecture on this very subject on your YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OxmzpuUa7g&t=2047s
I posted a question on there as well. Can you direct me to a “link” on Amazon (which is where I think you said you can buy it) to that specific Leningrad Codex replica? Is there a cheaper version of this? The one I did view on Amazon is over a thousand dollars!
What I probably showed in that video was not a replica but an edition, editor is Aron Dotan, Biblia Hebraica Leningradensia. It is available at various on-line sites…the Brill edition is the nicest–but there is an American edition as well. However, if you want a replica, that too is available..a lovey facsimile edition. You will have to search for it but I own one…got it some years ago. Just do some searching around on the internet and/or check with your favorite bookseller.
Very interesting from a lexical and semantic point of view.
But I miss a greater and better knowledge of the author of the thesis of W.V. He defines the indeterminacy of the translation that is formulated in his text – a must-read for all professional translators-* Word and Object.*
Of the three aspects of indeterminacies of interest in this case are (i) inscrutability of reference, and (ii) holophrastic indeterminacy, above all (i).
Indeterminacy of reference refers to the interpretation of words or phrases in isolation, and Quine’s thesis is that no unique interpretation is possible, because a ‘radical interpreter’ has no way of telling which of many possible meanings the speaker has in mind.
Also missing is a better knowledge of the guest author of this post of the pragmatics and the theory of Speech Acts.
*How to do Things with Words,*
JL Austin
*Intentions in Communication*
Cohen, P., J. Morgan, and M. Pollack (eds.)
*Mind, Language, and Society: Doing Philosophy in the Real World,*
J. Searle
Always welcome input FerPer but keep in mind, the idea of this translation is to allow one to “peer through” the English to the original Hebrew–thus further levels of language usage and interpretation would then follow from that base. Unless one knows Hebrew, or has access to major lexical works, that is a primary first step in working with the text. Even in simple English one can begin to appreciate the framework of the language itself, its common idioms, and rhythms and cadence.
I will definitely check out your translation! I recently got into Bentley Hart’s NT translation and it was really fascinating. I know this particular work isn’t really about you interpreting, but do you have a take on the theory that the different appellations of God have something to do with editors combining different versions?
I do think these “names” or appellations can serve on some levels as editorial clues as to courses but the common apologetic response to the so-called Documentary Hypothesis, that it simply depends on J, E, et al. as marking sources is invalid. Those who work closely with the DH–particularly folks like the late Joseph Blenkinsopp, Joel Baden, and Richard Elliot Freedman, among others–have sharpened the primary thesis of Wellhausen, Bleek, and some of the early “pioneers” who worked on identifying and dating the various “sources,” have made it clear that this simplistic view is not only easy to refute but not really at the center of the hypothesis as a whole. In other words the use of YHVH, Elohim, et al. is not the main indicator. I highly recommend Freedman’s Preface in his amazing book, The Bible: The Sources Revealed. One careful read of that will make it clear that the identification of these sources rests on far far more than “names.” It has to do with entire sets of special vocabulary, theological themes and emphases, and unique characteristics. It is very impressive and as Freedman remarks in that Preface, he is aware of no critic of the DH who has even addressed the complexity of the evidence. Josh McDowell and others of that type simply do not even understand the issues involved.
Dr. Tabor:
Fascinating discussion on the first few verses of Genesis. Like another Blog member who posted earlier, I’ve taken up the study of Biblical Hebrew as one of my retirement hobbies. I look forward to using your translation as a companion source when trying to read and understand the Masoretic text.
Good for you. I wish you the best and I think my translation will be of help.