of the Dead Sea Scrolls has opened our eyes to the many textual traditions that were around in pre-Christian Palestine. Most translators of the Hebrew Bible start with a Masoretic text (MT) known as the Leningrad Codex B 19A.50 This was copied in about 1009 CE. When these translators encounter problems, they may find a better reading in some other textual tradition, e.g., the Samaritan text (for the first five books) or perhaps in the Hebrew text that was behind the Septuagint (a Greek translation from the third century BCE). In this translation of Genesis, you will not find this kind of search for the best text; this translation is a translation of the Masoretic textual tradition. Other textual traditions are also important, but the translation of those traditions represents another project.
This translation of Genesis tries to make use of recent discoveries. Throughout this introduction, it is clear that new discoveries have given us new information on burial customs. By the study of AML, we are constantly learning more about literary parallels and the meaning of words. Also, we have learned that the peoples of the ancient Mediterranean world formed a cosmopolitan whole. At least the urban centers were in constant contact with each other and shared their learning and traditions. The Mediterranean World had very few isolated communities. There was just too much shipping by sea and trading by land. Fernand Braudel says that one of the great truths that remains unchallenged in his work on the Mediterranean is “the unity and coherence of the Mediterranean region.”51 So, the key is to bring all new information to bear upon our text. We attempt to let the Hebrew text have its day. This is not a revision of the English tradition of Bible translations.
Another characteristic of this translation is that it is not bound by modern theological concerns. In the past, for example, some theologians have demanded that Gen 1:1 be translated, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” But Genesis does not read that way. It does not deal with ultimate origins. In fact, the first two verses describe the circumstance when God first began to bring order out of chaos. The theological demands were designed to protect the doctrine of God from any kind of dualism or pantheism. It is clear that in Genesis God orders chaos. The Hebrew authors did not address the problem of where the matter came from. In this translation, I do not use the words “create” or “creation.” The emphasis of many that “creation” means “creation out of nothing” is just wrong. I hate to give up on good words, but I have been compelled to use the more basic meanings of Hebrew words, in this case “to sculpt”/“to form.” Thus, my own translation of Gen1:1a is “When Elohim first began to form the heavens and the earth . . .”
Other theological problems are not so well known. You will recall that at the start of the Introduction we discussed the plural “gods” in Gen 5:22 and 24 and 6:9. There is another example of this sort of thing in Gen 35:7. In this passage, Jacob “built there an altar; he called the sanctuary El-Bethel, for there the gods were revealed to him when he was fleeing from his brother.” Here we have not only the definite article with ’elohim, but even the verb (“were revealed”) is plural! Genesis 35:7 refers back to 28:20–22 where Jacob deals with two gods, one designated “Elohim” and the other designated “Yahweh.” This is a strong case for the use of the plural, but most translators avoid the issue.52
This translation places a premium on context. The context has a very important influence on the meaning of a word. In Gen 2:6, we are told that “the entire surface of the ground” was flooded. Given this context it becomes impossible to translate v. 7 in the traditional manner: “Yahweh-Elohim formed the human [from] the dust of the ground.” In this context, there would be no “dust.” The options have to do with either “mud” or “clay.” At this point in the translation, there will be a detailed note concerning these options.
This may be the place for a word concerning inclusive language. I can understand that a translator should not import sexist language into the translation, but if such language is in the text, the translator should not remove it. Because of the fear of using sexist language, the New Revised Standard Version (and others) tries to avoid saying “father” or “son” at all costs. But this practice can lead to inconsistencies. In Gen 23:5, “sons of Heth” is translated “Hittites” in a context which suggests that the reference is to Hittite men. In fact, v. 10 contains a different term for “Hittite” that does not denote gender. In Gen 27:46, where the context makes it certain that the reference is to women, inconsistency is forced on the NRSV, which must translate the “daughters of Heth” not as “Hittites” but rather “Hittite women.” Let the text have its day.53
There is a lot of poetry in the book of Genesis. Where it was possible, this translation has given the reader a poem in English. In this poetry, I have sometimes added a word or repeated a word (in brackets)54 to make the lines balanced in English. In addition to the poetry, there is “high prose” in Genesis, which is set in meaningful and rhythmic cola. In other places, the text takes the form of a play. I hope that this emphasis on format will be helpful in reminding the reader that this is royal epic.
After completing the first edition of this translation, two new translations have appeared. These are by Everett Fox and Robert Alter. Fox (The Five Books of Moses) has been interested in the Buber-Rosenzweig translation of the Hebrew Bible into German for many years. He says, “The Five Books of Moses is in many respects an offshoot of the Buber-Rosenzweig translation” (x). For Buber and Rosenzweig (and for Fox), it is important to remember that this was a book to be read aloud. I like the way Fox has given the text of this poetry and “high prose” in lines based on “spoken phrasing” (xv, and for Buber’s comments on this see Buber and Rosenzweig, Scripture and Tradition, 179). If this is the case, then I must say that Fox confuses me. He usually gives a proper name like “Perat” in its Hebrew pronunciation and then follows it with a translation (in this case “Perat/Euphrates”). This does not help me to return to the spokenness of the text (Buber and Rosensweig, 179). Fox’s translation is part of an edition of the Torah. He has translated what Genesis has become in a modern context. I have tried to translate a Royal Epic that had an important ancient context.
Robert Alter (in Genesis) has some of the same interests as Fox. He says, “the mesmerizing effect of these ancient stories will scarcely be conveyed if they are not rendered in cadenced English prose that at least in some ways corresponds to the powerful cadences of the Hebrew” (xxvi). The disappointing thing about Alter’s book is that his publisher has reduced his “cadenced English prose” down to blocks of prose.55 The cadence is buried. I consider this to be a major problem. (The publisher was also in a hurry. The headings in chapter 12 for the chapter and verses on each page all read 11 instead of 12; see 50–53.) The format takes away what Alter calls the “distinctive music” of biblical Hebrew (xxxix). Alter’s emphasis reflects his literary interests, but at times, these interests seem to hide other important issues and problems.
Both of these translations are better than most translations of Genesis. Yet, neither translation makes any real headway on some of the most notorious problems (e.g., 4:8; 35:4; 37:7; or 37:36). The following examples illustrate some of the differences between all three translations:
1:1
Alter: “When God began to create heaven and earth . . .”
Fisher: “When Elohim first began to form the heavens and the earth . . .”
Fox: “At the beginning of God’s creating of the heavens and the earth . . .”
Alter has translated this as “the heavens and the earth” on page xix of his introduction. The fact that he has left out “the” in 1:1 is serious, because on page xx, part of his argument for keeping every “and”
