Another Look at Genesis 1:11

    The difficulties of Gen 1:11 in the received text tend to be smoothed over in translation. A comparison of the Hebrew with three well-known translations bears this out.

ויאמר אלהים  

תדשא הארץ דשא

עשב מזריע זרע 

ועץ פרי  עשה פרי  למינו  אשר זרעו בו  

על הארץ 

ויהי כן

NIV:

Then God said,
“Let the land produce vegetation:
seed-bearing plants
and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.”
And it was so.

NJPSV:

And God said,
“Let the land sprout vegetation:
seed-bearing plants,
fruit trees of every kind on the land that bear fruit with the seed in it.”
And it was so.

ESV:

And God said,
"Let the earth sprout vegetation,
plants yielding seed,
and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth."
And it was so.

    Each of the translations reorders the constituents of the Hebrew in an attempt to make an awkward text less awkward. “Let the land do such-and-such . . . on the land” is harsh in any language. The diction is awkward rather than merely redundant. The solution adopted by NIV and NJPSV, such that the land brings forth trees on the land, as opposed to all that goes before, is not an improvement. “Fruit-bearing fruit trees of every kind with the seed in it,” per the Hebrew, is also awkward: “fruit” and “with the seed in it,” phrases which belong together, are separated by intervening text. NIV, NJPSV, and ESV fix the problem in translation.

MT Gen 1:11 translated honestly looks something like this:

God said:
“Let the land turn green with green:
seed-bearing vegetation,
fruit-bearing fruit trees of every kind with the seed in it,
on the land.”
And it was so.

    It seems best to admit that MT, as occasionally happens, is in partial disarray. I would suggest that the archetype of MT Gen 1:11-12 and all other ancient witnesses looked like this:

ויאמר אלהים  

תדשא הארץ דשא

עשב מזריע זרע  

עץ פרי  עשה פרי

לנין על הארץ

ויהי כן

ותוצא הארץ דשא  

עשב מזריע זרע  למינהו

ועץ עשה פרי  אשר זרעו בו  למינהו …

God said:

“Let the land become green with green:
seed-bearing vegetation
fruit-bearing fruit trees
propagating on the land.”
And so it was.
The land brought forth green:
seed-bearing vegetation of every kind
and trees bearing fruit with the seed in it, of every kind.

    The order and pattern of the elements of 1:11-12 as reconstructed above resemble but also differ from those of 1:14-17:

ויאמר אלהים

יהי מארת  ברקיע השמים

להבדיל בין היום ובין הלילה …

להאיר על הארץ

ויהי כן  

ויעש אלהים  את שני המארת הגדלים  

את המאור הגדל  לממשלת היום  

ואת המאור הקטן  לממשלת הלילה

ואת הכוכבים …

God said:

“Let there be lights in the sky’s vault
to separate the day from the night …
shining light on the land.”
And so it was.
God made the two great lights:
the greater light to rule the day
and the lesser light to rule the night,
and the stars. …

    When scribes copied the text of Gen 1, the lack of perfect one-to-one correspondence between Wortberichte (reports of executable words) and Tatberichte (reports of executed deeds) triggered a series of harmonizing interpolations such that the degree of correspondence was enhanced. Ronald Hendel (1998: 120-123) singled out more than a dozen examples of harmonizing interpolations in Gen 1 by comparing MT, Qumran mss, the Old Greek, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac, and the Targumim.¹ In my view, (1) an original but unusual לנין in the Wortbericht was read as למינו, an assimilation to למינהו in the Tatbericht (1:12); the graphic shape of the underlying לנין is still visible in part. (2) אשר זרעו בו, another assimilation to the Tatbericht, was appended to למינו at the same time. On this reconstruction, (1) and (2) would be products of the harmonizing impulse visible elsewhere in the textual record.

    The advantages of my diagnostic conjecture are straightforward. Three cruces of MT Gen 1:11 – the ungrammatical order of constituents, with למינו before rather than after אשר זרעו בו;  the occurrence of למינו instead of the expected למינהו ; and על הארץ without a proper antecedent – disappear. על הארץ receives a proper antecedent: compare 1:17 for an identical syntactic configuration. למינו, which seems unlikely to have been invented out of thin air, is not eliminated, but reconstructed on the hypothesis of a plausible misapprehension, לנין < למינו.

    The difficulty with my conjecture is that the verb נין, with the plausible but far from certain sense of producing (blades), shoots, (or branches) (so HALOT), related to the noun נין “stem, shoot” (like genealogical “tree”), is attested but once, in reference to the king’s progeny: “May his name [name = claim to fame = discendents] endure forever, in the [life-giving] sun may his name flourish (ינין)” (Ps 72:17).²

    On this understanding, the use of noun and verb in attested instances is consistently metaphorical, according to the ubiquitous template “PEOPLE are PLANTS.” The verb in its literal sense in Gen 1:11 would make a fitting counterpart to other verbs in context such as פרה “be fruitful.” Alternatively, and no less effectively, the verb נין can be assigned the meaning BDB suggests – “propagate, increase.”

    Hendel takes a different tack. He entirely omits למינו from his critical text of 1:11. The omission of the admitted crux is, no less than my proposal, a diagnostic conjecture since it is not the case that the Old Greek (or any other ancient witness) supports the omission. OG represents למינו by κατὰ γένος – after its equivalent to אשר זרעו בו, where למינו belongs as it were. The most plausible explanation: OG – more likely, its Vorlage – tidied up the word order of 1:11 of its base – identical to MT in this respect – by assimilating the word order to the expected one.

    Since I take it for granted that MT, “birth-marks” and all, is and always will be the text of the the heirs of the Pharisees; since I concur with Jerome (against Augustine) that the hebraica veritas ought to serve as the text of reference and the text-to-be-translated among the heirs of the Nazarene, I believe that text-critical solutions to cruxes in MT belong in the footnotes of a Bible of synagogue or church, not the main text.

    On the other hand, a text-critic is unfaithful to her calling if she does not seek to restore the text of Genesis to a version thereof that is less developed, intentionally and unintentionally, than the versions which came to be accepted by Jews, Samaritans, and Christians in the Greek and Roman periods. Text-criticism, the cautious use of diagnostic conjecture included, is a responsibility a scholar in the tradition of the Renaissance will not be afraid to assume.

¹If you think that MT Genesis is a text which has been left untouched by the scribal impulse to harmonize, think again. Hendel (1998: 41) singles out 25 cases in which MT Genesis 1-11 preserves harmonizations, explications, or revisions of the putative archetype from which it stems. If we had more witnesses to the pre-Masoretic Pentateuch, the number of cases in which it would be possible to offer a more primitive text would conceivably run into the hundreds.

² When I read this, I cannot help but think of the winged sun-disc which appears on the famous seal of "Abdi, servant of [King] Hoshea."

Bibliography (besides the standard commentaries and reference works)

Ronald S. Hendel, The Text of Genesis 1-11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998)

Comments

[Brian]

Very nice. I'm a terrible text-critic, and yet this all makes sense to me.
By the way, I'm intrigued by the very idea of mentioning plants "with their seed in them" etc. I recall once thinking (or hearing from someone else, or both) that this detail is some kind of "demythologizing"--obviously a problematic term--tendency in Genesis 1, along with the offhanded reference to the stars and calling the sun "the greater light" instead of שמש in 1:14-17 etc. The "demythologizing," in this view, would be confirmation of an automatic, "secular" (?) process of reproduction, in which fruits are simply provided with a mechanical process of reproduction, as opposed to some other method spurred on by ritual or what have you. Surely someone has written something like this in the past. But now that I say it, this seems to be fraught with problems, and these sorts of views are quite passé these days anyway. But it's still interesting.
Anyway, back to the text critical problem you address above: If the אשר זרעו בו phrase has some function like this, it could stand as an insertion or explanatory aside, disturbing the "expected" syntax.
Anyway: this is not helpful, but I thought your good post deserved some response!

[JohnFH]

Thanks for the encouragement, Brian.

I think the phrase you note, fruit "with its seed in it" in Gen 1:12 is part of the scientific cast of the text, a register the first author deliberately chose in order to demythologize. The scribal addition of the phrase in Gen 1:11 would serve another purpose, that of creating a more perfect correspondence between a Wortbericht and a Tatbericht.

I have often posted on the question of the genre of Genesis 1, myth and demythologization, and so on.

A few examples:

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2007/03/the_genre_of_ge.html

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2010/02/genesis-1-definitions-of-myth-and-mark-s-smith.html

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/09/genesis-1-the-creation-of-an-intelligible-cosmos.html

[michael]

No, no--not "fruit tree"; as Rashi notes, it is a "tree of fruit"! The whole thing tastes like fruit :)

Just imagine what modern marketing could make out of this...

[JohnFH]

Shades of Revelation 22:2. Thanks, Michael, for bringing Rashi's comment to our attention.

[Brian Mitchell]

Mr. Hobbins,

You say:

"I believe that text-critical solutions to cruxes in MT belong in the footnotes of a Bible of synagogue or church, not the main text."

Am I correct in understanding this as reflecting an uneasiness with a use of an eclectic text as a main text in a community of faith? The first printed TR used by many was very much an eclectic text. I am not sure how often readers of translation of the TR were informed by the footnotes of textual decisions.

Now, of course communities have changed from TR to the USB/NA27 as well as to the Leningrad Codex from Daniel Bomberg's editions. The Orthodox Church probably didn't change from the LXX and texts based on it.

Notwithstanding, those who use texts in translation probably have little knowledge that their canon of scripture was every changed or if they do it doesn't bother them, unless of course they are fundamentalist.

However, even some modern Orthodox Jews have gone to the standard Hebrew text found in the Mikraot Gedolot to texts based on the Aleppo codex. There is a book called "fixing God's Torah" that brings some evidnce that the sefer Torah has been changed over the years by soferim who though they were correcting errors in texts, when they were in fact only encountering regional differences in Torah scrolls.

But, as you note it is a difficult matter to balance respect for the accepted text of the community and the continual pursuit for the legendary UR Text. If, or when we every get close that that goal I am sure that communities of faith make the transition, if it is done a little at a time.

My Quick and Rough(maybe faulty) translation of the BHS apparatus (GEN 1:11):

LXX, and Latina Vulgata connect עשׂב with דשׁא

lege(ndum) with a few manuscripts Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX, Syriac, Targum Jonathan, Latina Vulgata וְעץ compare with verse 12

למי֯נהו Probably delete compare with verse 12

Fragment, '4Q2 Genesis b' appears to read very simular to the text we are used to, but it may or not mean much because a mixed variety of readings are reflected in the Qumran texts.

ויאמר אלהים
תֿדֿשֿאֿ הארצֿ ד֯שֿאֿ
עשב מזריע זרע
עץ֯ פרי עשה פרי
למֿיֿנ֯וֿ אשר זֿרֿעֿוֿ בֿוֿ עֿל הארץ וֿיֿהֿיֿ כֿן
ותוצֿא הארץ דֿש֯[א]
עשב מזֿ[ריע זרע למינהו ו]
עץ עֿשֿהֿ פרי אֿשֿרֿ זֿרֿעֿו בו למי֯נהו

Logos Bible Software. (2010). 4Q2 Genesis b (Ge 1:11-12). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

This was a very thought provoking post. Your post seems to touch on a variety of issues while dealing with textual criticism (unless of course I am reading too much into them).

Peace,
Brian K. Mitchell

[JohnFH]

Hi Brian,

All texts are eclectic in one sense or another. That's not the problem. For a community of faith, the point is to be reading and commenting on the same text one's ancestors in the faith did.

In line with the classical tradition of the Reformation, I accept the Masoretic text as the base for interpretation within the community of faith and consider exegetes like Rashi, ibn Ezra, Kimchi, and Shadal no less than Calvin and company as dialogue partners in the task of interpretation. The details matter therefore.

On the other hand, I also want to be in communion as it were with the first author(s) of the text. In order to do that, I need to reconstruct the text they wrote.

[Brian Mitchell]

I think this statement of yours is brilliant and clearly stated:

"For a community of faith, the point is to be reading and commenting on the same text one's ancestors in the faith did."

Within communities that share a corporate liturgical language, tradition, historically and continuously adopted texts, it is not hard to grasp how those communities can have continuity with their ancestors as a congregation.

But what happens or how does this work out in environments in which there are a multiplicity of translations (based on a variety of translation theories) in the same congregation and little or no exposure to the source texts (original language texts)?

Within communities of the Christian faith I have had the chance to visit 'tradition' and a shared 'ecclesiastic heritage' seemed to be disregarded in favor of religious individualism. Of course, those communities had some form of Congregational polity. I know there are positive aspects to be said about congregational and individual autonomy.

But it is also a wonderful thing that in some communities of faith it is possible to travel across the globe and visit a congregation within the same denomination and and to partake in and at least be able to understand the prayers and follow along in the public reading of scripture according to the lectionary in the same liturgical language.