STRUCTURAL NALYSIS OF GEixS. Brnst R. Wendland Intre 4 literery-otructrual anslysis is one which attends to those features of a text which are somehow interpretable in terms of a particular literary function, be they manifested on the macro- (above the sentence) or micro= (bellow the sentence) level of linguistic organization. My underlying asounp- tion is that discourse "structure", a term which is normally reserved for features that characterize the larger constructs of a composition (including the discourse as a whole), must be considered in relation to the literary "style" of the discourse, which properly encompasses the preceding, but also applies to distinctive linguistic properties of a more restricted nature and scope. All the prominent esthetic/rhetorical attributes of a discourse (as determined on the basis of form, function, density, and/or distribution) need to be investigsted--individually and'in relation to one enother-~for these often operate in concert to reveal and foreground important espects of 8 text's overall structural framework. To the literary-structurelist,. (2) then, every distinctive form that is found in a text (by objective means) is significant, for these do not occur randomly, nor are they the product of "chance". Rather, they are always associated with some quality that pertains to the discourse a5 a whole and relate to the conmunicative situation in which it was first realized. The purpose of this study is to provide an outline of the structural organization of the first three chapters of Genesis and to call attention to those features of the author's style which have a prominent role to play in the communication of his message. (3) Accordingly, I will be concerned with both form and function in the text and how these relate to the content that is being conveyed. The composition of a literary discourse is s complex process which involves all levels of linguistic structure. However, I will focus upon those formal espects which have special relevance to lerger spans of text, namely, the sentence level and above. These will be discussed in terms of four general characteristice of well-formed verbal discourses: a) Segmentation - how the text is denarcated into interrelated units of various size and scopes rangement - how the text is organized by formal patterns of a syntagnatic or paradigmatic nature; ity - how the text is unified through lexical and/or syntactic ties, resulting in coherence and cohesion respectively; 4) Prominence - how different portions of the text are either foregrounded or backgrounded by means of selected artistic and rhetorical devices: . These four attributes are not mutually exclueive. Rather, they interact and overlap in manifold ways to create the distinctive style of a composition while simultaneously enabling the transmission of its content. Therefore, they will'not be treated in isolation below, but will be integrated into a unified presentation of the structural and stylistic properties of Genesis 1-3, eepecially those features which may have some relevance tc one who faces the task of translating this text into another language. The two critical questions that motivate my treatment of this eubject are these:(2) #) to what extent does the form of the originel contribute to the meaning ard impact of the message? and - b) to what degree can these significant aspects of form be either transferred or transformed to duplicate the sense and effect within the confines of another linguistic sode? The latter question. can be answered only in the context of an actual receptor Language situation, en? that remains to be more fully investigated. The Qverall Structure of Genesis ‘hie will be a very cursory survey, intended merely to situate the Genesis 1-3 pericope within its larger structural context. ‘The book of Genssis is one of the most clearly organized narrative books of the Bible. I: begins with en intricately composed prologue (1.1-2.3) which sketches in poctic prose the supernatural events thet comprised the first weuk of history. This ectablishes the foundation for the following narrative, divisions, Each such division leads off with the formula (v*)'élleh tol‘doth + (personal pene) (4) "(And) these (sre) the generations oF 7 he noun to27doth, which is alweys plural, refers to a gencalogieal record which may or may not be embellished by historical details, depending on the thenatic-importance of those personages who are included within its scope. Thie formula has both a cataphoric (forward-looking) and an anaphoric (back- ward-looking) referential significance, On the one hand, it serves to intro Guce anew stage of narrative hictory, i.e. che demonstrative "these" points ahead to what is about to be reported--consequents rather then sntecedents. Yes, on the other hand, these forthcoming nanes nd events issue from or are a consequence of the life (or “history") of the person cited in the formula, Eoreone who has been moptioned previously in the account, e.g. Adam, Nosh, Shem, etc. The ten tol"dSth which segnent Genesis are as follows: I II. 1. 2:44.26 = Heaven and Earth 6. 19,27-25.11 = Terah 5.1-6.8 = Adan 7. 25.12-25.18 = Ishmael 3+ 6.9-9.29 = Noah 8. 25.19-35.29 = Isaac 4h, 10.1011.9 = Sor of Noah 9s 36.1-36.43 = Esau 14410-11.26 = Shen 10. 37,250.26 = Jacob The ten es", of Senesis may be arranged according to content into two groups of five. Fort one, covering chepters 1.1-11.26, presents a general history ‘of the human race from the time of creation to @ riod Occurring sometime after the dispersion of peoples at Babel. This account features three peaks, each corresponding to a crisis in the relation- ip between God and the rcople whom hé created: (a) the origin] fall into (%) the universal fl00d; ‘and (c) the monument at Zabel. In each case, wickedness of man results in God's initial act of judgment, followed by act of iméroy. The break between parts one and two (71.26-27) is formally ked an the discourse by repetition in @ tail-nead construction (enadiplosis). rt two Of Genesis (ch. 12-50) focuses upon the specific history of Cnats hosen people. This section is also divided roughly into three parts, each sesounting ‘the Life story of one of the “petriarchs": Abraham, Isaac, snd Jesch, whom God selected from ail the families on earth to be the blessed bearers of his promise of ealvation for all (cf. 12.2-3, 26-24, 28.14).@) Prologue (Genesis 1. 1-2.3) ais opening segment of the discourse is a carefully constructed literary unit whose artietic form enhances both its exalted content and theme (1,2) and also its function, namely to serve as an introduction that lays the foundation for the rest of the book. Subsequent events feature a close interaction--sonetines of harmony, sometimes of disharnony--between the Creator and his creation, man in particuler. The boundaries of this initial Section are clearly established by seversl devices: a) the lexical link that ties together the beginaing (1.1) and ending (2.3) of this section (inclusio), i.e. bard '“15hin "God created"; b) the coherence effected by the repetition (35 times) of '°16nin "Goa", Which in almost 811 instunces functions as cubject/sgenty c) the cohesion furnished by the frequent parallelism in syntox and simple paratactic style in which the average clause is only four words long; 4) the elaborate internal patterning of events, which follow a recurrent sequence and progression; and @) the essential unity of time--one week--which segments the history into six days of oreation and the seventh of rest. ‘The prologue is composed of eleven paragraphe as follow: Paragraph One (1,1-1.2)---Setting ‘These two verses give the setting--time, plece, and circunstances-. for the paragraphs that follow. This eetting includes the major participant and primary agent, '“lohin, who functions as subject of the first sentence of the book. The openihg verse states the theme of this chapter: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This verse also acts as a sumgary heading which previews the content of the events that are reported in the prologue. This narrative technique may be observed elsewhere in Genesie (e.g. 37.5, 18, 21), Contrary to what is found in other historical books (except 2 Chronicles and epenian) there is no sentenco~initial connective, i.e. way "and" or way"hi "and it was", at the beginning of verse ene since it refers to the originjof history, Similarly, the expected temporal margin, the enarthrous b'réshith (1it. 'in a beginning’), is shifted to the head of the sentence for emphasis (cf. Jn 1.1- on arche). The struc- tural function of verse one, its internal syntax as well as the syntax of the chapter as a whole would argue against treating it as @ dependent clauge leading into verse two (e.g. GNB: "In the beginning when God created..."). Verse ‘one is related to verse two by the link vord M'Brete "the varth" (tail-head construction), This reference, which also features a syntactic reversal in the word order (subject before verb-perfect), (5) focuses the reader's attention on thet part of the universe (ive. "the heavens and the earth") which ic to be the centre vantage point in the sub- sequent narrative report, Verse two is included in God's activity of creation, the whole of which is specified in the preceding title, but this preparatory work ie kept implicit ond only the result is recorded--perhaps te avoid a logical and collocational clash (i.e. God + create # chaos). Thus we are left with a portrayal of the blesk scene that pertaine before God constructs form out of formlessness. This description,is poetically heightened in both sound, ise. the rhyming pair of nouns toh vibéhi "without shape end empty", and syntactic arrangenent, i.e. contrastive paralleliem:aw sseand darkness (was) on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God (was) woving on the face of the waters. With a few deft strokes, the author has painted an evocative picture of desolation contrasting with future potential (i.e. the Spirit) which forms the backdrop for the creative evnts to come. The ‘Form of the Expression of Bpisodes 1-6 Starting with episode (dy) one and continuing on through episode (day) six, a cyclic structural pattern appears which is reminiscent of the construc- tion of oral narrative, in many parts of Africa at least. This pattern is characterized by an ordered series of generic events /states which is repeated one, two, or more tims during the course of an account. Often the final repetition of such a series will introduce @ significant alteration in the basic progression, and thie brings the narrative to @ climactic close. The key evente/states (i.e, "stages") that combine to form "cycles" which repeat themselves to structure the remainder of chapter one are these: "and God said 2) quote introductio “ b) quotation: God's pronouncement--e performative utterance c) result: "...it was 50.” 4) action report: the fulfillment of (b) e) God's reaction: "God saw that (it was) good." f) i+ naming (inanimate): "And God called. or ii+ blessing (animate): "And God blessed..." 5) conclusion: “And there was evening. -+morning..." These seven stages, with the optional omission of one or two from (c) to (f), manifest themselves on each of the six days of creation as idllows: Correspondences Sone relatively close similarities in form among the six cycles are evident, e-g. 14 6b (extremes), 3t + 4e (means), 2+5 and 3a + 6a (internal series). The correspondences are not exact (except for 3a + 4b), but there:is enough likeness on both the linear and the non-linear planes to warrant the conclusion that this is act @ randon reporting of events. The shape of the account is structured to harmonize with the ordered (indeed perfect) creation that,results from God's activity. Notice that the greatest aberration in pattern occurs in the case of Sb, which reports the climax of the week's work, namely, the formetion of man and woman.I will just mention in passing several lexical patterns to be found in the prologue of Genesis: Ten acte of creation arc’ introduced by "And he said” with the result recorded seven times as "And there wes..." This result is also attributed as "good" seven times. "And he called..." appears three times, followed by another three instances of "And he blessed..." These numbers may heve a symbolic significance, i.e. ten being the number of perfection/complete- ness, seven the number of divine works, and three to represent the divine person, (6) But from the discourse perepective, the important thing is the coherence which such lexical recursion lends to the account, helping to give the prologue added distinctiveness and unity. Further parallels in the content of these six cycles will be pointed out later on. Two _(1.3-5)=~-Bpisode/Day One “Light" (13r) is the cohesive word of this paragraph, occurring five tines in three varses. The first utterance, a close juxtaposition of parti- cipant and narrator speech, is poetically rendered: yihi tr, vay*hi ‘Sr. Here the imperative y'hE ("let there be") is smoothly transformed into narrative fact ("and there was) by the ubiquitous conjunction vay. The expression is emphatic in the originel, and thue the trenslator ought to try to duplicate its intensity and lexical patterning in the BL if possible, e.g+ not GN, but Chewa: "Kuyere, ndipa kudayeradi. The perallelien which is Such a prominent structural feature of the prologue is very such evident throughout this first episod ragrap! God separated between the light and between the darkness God called the light Day end the darkness he called Night. The formulaic conclusion manifests reversel in the referential order, but the parallelism continues: And there was evening and there was morning Nowhere will one find « more explicit narrative terminal juncture. It is clear-cut; it is also emphatic. Paragraph Three (4,.6-8)-=-Bpisode/Day Two The referentially promiuent topic of this paragraph is the "dome" (xiqiye") which separates the waters” (nayin) above and below it. This word isan Instance of phenonenational language, which describes something as it appears to the: ordinary observer om earth, The idea of separation, which is the focus of this day's activity, is mirrored linguistically for emphscis through the use of appropriate verbs, an abundance of prepositions, repetition, and parallel patterning: Ae "Let there be a done he midst of the waters; let it be dividing seperated een the waters to the waters." Be He the waters which ere) under to the done ond n the waters which (were) sbove to the dome. As in the preceding paragraph, we have snother example of the close inter- action between dislogue and action in Hebrew narrative, God speake (A above) and then the author reletes thc implications, consequences, or simply a restatement. (plus or minus certain details) of thet divine speech act (i.e. B)+(6) This Yecursive device, which foregrounds the event sequence by essentially reporting it twice, is employed throughout the prologue. Paragraphs Four & Five (1.9-13)---Episode/Day Three Episode three differs structurally from the previous two inthat it incorporates two cycles of events, each represented as a paragraph (see @iagren above). The first is concerned with the separation between land and sea (vs, 9-10); the second reports the production of vegetation (vs. 11-13). Im oyclé one of tiis unit, the focal elements are first ordered syntactically in parallel, and then they are arranged chiastically: wis vis vio let them be (V)-----the waters (s) he called (V)-----the dry land (0) collected let it appear (V)---the dry Land (8) the collection----he called (¥) of waters (0) A chiasm also links the $/0 members of the two sets: waters : dry lend :: dry lend : waters In cycle (paragraph) two, or the second half of day three, the three classes of vegetation which are called forth are each highlighted lexically through repetition: a) let the earth sprout sprouts (i.e. grasses) b) the herb seeding seed (i.e. grain) ©) the tree of fr Ge. fruit trees) producing (ote the ascending order of development.) As in the first to episodes (but not 3a), the empowering word (v. 11) is echoed in creative action (v. 12), resulting in a narrative style where redundancy is utilized for emphasis and poctic effect. Paragraph Six (1, 14-19)---Episode/Day Four Extensive parallelism of form and expression is again prominent in this paragraph, for example: = let there be lights in the done of the heavens to divide...(14) let them be for lights in the done of the heavens to lighten...(15) might (14) day-.snight (16) day...night (18) = the large light to rule the day the small light to rule the night (16) = aay. = to give light...to rule over-..to separate (18) This likeness of form contrasts with the central chiasm that reverses the order of reference within the typical pattern of quotation plus narrative report: to divide between the ".,4im the expense of heaven to day and the night..." (14 give light on the arth..." (15) s+ein the expense of heaven +..to separate between the light to give light on the earth (17) and the darkness (18) This type of patterning ie charactoristic of Hebrew poetic discourse. The mainideas are repeated for emphasis, but this repetition is artistically structured Re that the result is not a boring, but a beautifully-composed text. Peragraph. Seven (1.20~ J---Bpisode/Day Five Parallelism and chiasm are combined in the two seguents of direct epecch which eppear in this paragraph. The second quote gives the first instance of a blessing in the account (corresponding to the "noming" of episodes 1-3): reforence syntax v.20 a) water ves ») earth s-¥ v.22 8) water v - (8) ») earth s-v A syntactic reversal is often employed in the prologue to sharpen a contrest between items, in this instance, water creatures versus birds (ef. 1.10 - ary land vs, collection of waters, 1.5 - light vs, darkness), p graphs 8-10 (1.24-31)---Bpisode/Day Six As was the case in episode three, so also in episode six there are two cycles of creation-events. The first, reporting the emergerice of land animals, is straightforward and follows the usisl progression of events (i.e. 8 = d~ e+ d~e), including an initiating conmand (v. 24) preceding @ synonymous action response (v. 25). ‘The repeated (5 times) refrain “after its kina" (iAningh) adds to the coherence of this unit. ‘The second cycle, which builds up to the climax of the prologue in the creation of man end women, is for more elaborate than the first.: It consists of two paragraphs, cach leading off with the seme quote margin, “and God said...", and concluding with @ segment of direct speech that recalls its beginning (inclusio), i.e. rule over fish...birds...every creeping thing..." (26) par. 9: rule over fish...birds...every creeping thing..." (28) " (29) par.10: "I have given you every plant...it shell be food to you. "J.eevery green plant is for food.” (30) The focal verse is 27, and appropriately it is encoded in poetic diction. It is structured around the threefold use of the verb "create" (bar), which occurs at the beginning, middle, and end of the verse. ‘The three lines are first ordered chiastically, then in parallel: x [278 he created - God - in his image yp S27 in the image of -. God - he created = - hin 27¢ male end female - he crested = them ‘This syntactic balance is enhanced by phonological patterning. The three lines are similar in length: 11, 8, and 9 syllables respectively, and there is assonence throughout in the alternating /o/ end /a/ sounds, for example, at the end of each line: bizalnow...!Sthow...!othim ‘The challenge facing translators is to highlight this semantic and structural peak by means of literary devices appropriate in their language.(8) The. remainder of this climactic episode continues to illustrate the seme extensive patterning that distinguishes the prologue es 2 whole. Direct speech resumes in the twofold blessing of man: procrestion (v. 26) and provision (v. 29). First there is a. symnetrical arrangement of constituents: (28a) he blessed =~ them = God he osid - to then = God (28) be fruitful - multiply - fill (the earth) subdue (it) = rule over fish...cea - —rdbirds...air - creeping beasts...carth Fart two of the blessing exhibits an even more complex example of lexical structuring (v. 29): 4) I have given to you every herb seeding seed which... ») and every tree which. 2) fruit of the tree seeding seed a) to you it shall be for food eS) and to every beast which... 2) every gs herd for food ‘The many interlocking correspondences which give cohesion to thie passage may be schematized as follows: a) every herb seeding seed to you b) i every tree tree : : 2} : tree heoding seea a) i to you for food to you ed dvery beast to beast | £) bvery g. herd for food Taie is not mere repetition; it is patterned recursion, intended to create an esthetic effect end mee an impact on the reader while simultaneously high- Lighting the content being transmitted. Notice also that the mention of the various types of vegetation here recalls the description in the second half of day three, which is the analogous unit to this in the overall organization of content in chapter one. The Form of the Content of Episodes 1-6 4n examination of the content of these six episodes reveals yet another structural pattern which helps to strengthen the unity of this discourse seg- ment, The pattern differs from that manifested in the "form of expression” presented earlier, but the two encompassing designs do not contradict one another. Rather, they sre mutually reinforcing in relation to the whole which they comprise. The six days/episodes divide naturally into two parallel triads as Shown below: Inhabitant ---4, LIGHTS (sun, moon, stars) 2, SEA & SKY. 5. FISH & FOWL 3.$LaND~ 6. {aTKALS texanzs NatThere is on obvious relationship between the corresponding menbers of both triads, each specific pair falling into the general categorization of Habitat and Inhebitant (if we may stretch the latter to include inenimate heavenly bodies). "Light" (day 1) ic problemetic in thet it cannot, strictly speaking, be confined to a perticuler place. However, the basic relation which Linke the two mmbers ic similar to the others:' in the "region" of Light (ives where there is light), there we naturally find the prominent “Light-producing bodies (aay 4). The sea and sky (day 2) are made to teem with fish (sea creatures) and fowl (day 5). and finally, the land producing vegetation for food (day 3) is formed as the hatitat of the aninels and man (aay 6), each of these letter two days enteiling 2 double act of creation. The plan is as perfect 2s its Architect. Paragraph Bleven (2.1-3)---Bpisode/tay Seven The final paragraph of the prologue is 9 fitting conclusion, not only in content (i.e. the denouement of the narrative segment), but elso in form, as parallelien and revereal are once more ekilfully interwoven both to embellish and to reinforce the messag © basic eyntactic-senantic struc ture which acts for the framework for this unit is thi (Za) he finished - on the seventh day - his work — ~ which he made (2b) he rested = on the seventh dey - from hie work- which he made (3b) on at = he rested = from his work- which he created In (3b), the temporal reference "on it" (i.e, the seventh day) is front- shifted to mark the end of the serics, Coterminous with the above pattern is another, this time of chiastic nature, which incorporates all of the key events of the episode: gop Ap finished/made Bo rested i > blessed Ct -canctifiod Bterested A-created/made The opening and closing worde of thie peragraph, taken together, recall (in reverse order) the opening verse of Genceis: (2.1) the heavens and the earth... (2.3) ...God created Thus, bard '°1Snin functions es an apt inclusio to round out this magnifi- cently constructed toxt--s discourse in which verbal form is masterfully oxploited to render thie history in # nenaer befitting a record of the personal works of the Creator.(10) Act One (Genesis 2.4-2.25) PART_ OW ‘The second narrative section in Genesis is clearly distinguished from the first by the initial formulaic discourse opener: "These (are) the generations of..." ('lleh tol*ddth). The lerger unit (Part one) runs to 5.1 where we have the onet of the “generations of Adan". Act one of this unit comprises the remsinder of chepter two. There is another explicit break at the boundary between chaptore tuo and three (jet two). Act ono is also differ- entiated from the prologue in the usage of the divine name. Beginning in verse four it is *novah '*5hin. This is the only name that is used to refer to God in chapter Two; it eppears 11 times to give coherence to this segnent of the account. Act one zeros in on what was the narrative peak of the prologue. It provides a fuller description of the creation of man.end woman (1.27) and localizes the setting (from the whole earth) to furnish a detailed portrait of man's immediate environment, both prior and subsequent to the creative act that brought man into existence (2.7). All events are recounted from his perspective (anthropocentric), even before he is present on the scene (see 5b for exanple), Specisl attention is given to the Garden in Eden, which ic man's firet home. An idyllic setting is portrayed--one that is characterized by a perfect harmony between man and nature. The generelly slow-moving pace of this chapter contrasts markedly with the swiftiy-alternating dialogue repartee which develops the tense account of man's fall in chapter three. There is Little direct speech in Act one. What there is of it performs a definite rhetorical function in the narrative (see below). This act, then, may be viewed dramatically ac a perparatory interlude, setting the stage, 60 to speak, for the climactic scene which follows. All the key props ond char acters (except for one, who cuddenly breaks into the action at 3.1) are carefully brought into the reader's view: man - the garden - the two trees ~ tho animals - and finally, wonan. This introduction of the essential back- ground material thus paves the way for the narrative to move quickly into the conversational exchanges that animate Act two. Paragraph One (2,4-7)~--Bpisode One After the formulaic title referred to above, there is a synonymous double temporal reference (one piece in apposition to the other) to Genesis tat: in their being crested, in the day of the making of Jehovah~God the earth end the heaven Such verbal duplication is a common device (i.e, anaphora) for signalling the respective beginnings of adjacent narrative units. In this case, the onset of the new segment is further marked by a lexical chiasm, i.c. heavens.: earth :: earth : heavens, ae correspondence is extended to include the setting which pertained as God Segan to set chaos in order. ‘The syntax, too, is similar to thet of 1.2, nenely, Subject - Verb - Locative: every shrub of the field - not yet was = on the earth every herb of the field - not yet sprung up - 2g Two other subject elements used to describe the scene--"(no) man" and "mist"~ are also front-shifted for emphasis. Tue absence of a hunan being is heightened phonologically through a play on words that sound alike, which are positioned St the onset and ending of the clause:an Aman (vi'Bdam) was not to till the ground (na! “damah). whe sccount then jumps from the disorganized state existing at the beginning of day one to its extreme--the peak at the conclusion of day six. Lexical patterning with locative-oriented nouns gives coherence to the paragraph as well es thematic unity, that is, to focus upon the man and his earthly origin (v8. 5=7)+ earth - carth : ground + earth : ground - ground The animating force and the resultant animate being are distinguished by means of referential parallelisn breath - of lives soul =~ ~—sdLiving ‘tne same word play which foregrounded the description of man's absence now appears in parallel to spotlight his creation: And Jehovan-God formed the gan (ha'Sdam), aust from the ground (n'°aBalh). Thus we soe that the literary devices and rhetorical structuring which shaped ond embellished the prologue (1.1-2.3) are also a prominent feature of the style of Act one. Forn is enployed artistically to distinguish, define, and delineate the content. Paragraph Two (2,8-9)---Bpisode One (cont.) In vivid contrast to the barren waste depicted et the beginning of paragraph one, paragraph two recounts © special act of creation--the formation of a beautiful garden which God prepared to be the home of man. Descriptive details setting the ‘scene are added in anticipation of the temptation episode of Act two (chapter three). Verse nine amplifies the sunmsry report of verse eight in typical debrew narrative style. However, before revealing the significance of the two trees thet ne has specified "in particulsr" (vav- opoxegetical), namely, “the tree of life” and"the tree of knowing good and evil", the narrator sbruptly breeke into 9 digression. This aside has the rhetorical function of building suspense into the account (i.e, "what about those trees?") end alco serves to single out the crucial commend concerning the trees of the garden, which cones afterwards (vs. 16-17). Paragraph Three (2.40-14: These verges are considered a digression because they interrupt the flow of the nerrative which has begn building up to the prohibition regarding the tree of knowing good end evil. This detour necessitetes an explicit resumption in v. 15 of the line of thought which was broken off in v. 9. In order to establish the reality of the Garden in den, the narrétor pauses to relate the original location of the garden to the geography existing ot the tine of composing this account (whether orally or in writing). The topic noun, one which recurs throughout the unit, namely nahar "river", is located first in the paragreph-initiel circunstentiel clause.” Specific description of the four branches of this river is reported in parallel fashion, probably’ proceeding fron the least to the best known (i.e. the Buphrates, which is merely naned): Digression(2) The name of the first (river) (is) Pishon. Tt... (11) The name of the second river (is) Gihon. It... (13) The name of the third river (is) Hiddexel-It... (14a) ‘The fourth river (is) Euphrates. (ibe) This is a typical descriptive paragraph, consisting almost entirely of non- verbal and non-event predicstions (excopt for the first verse). Paragraph Four (2.15-17)---Byisode One (cont.) As was mentioned, verse 15 employs some repetition to tie it back into para- graph two, which'was interrupted for the digression. The climactic speech act, the first words to be quoted in Act one, is poctically structured to stress the contrasts involved in man's relationship to the two trees specified by God: yy Si08 every tree St the garden = eating you aay est, but w® of the tree of knowing good you must not eat from it, for x end evil, SS in the dey of your cating fron aying you shall. die!" ity © initial paralleliem features front-shifting of the nominal ideas and intensification of the verbs (through use of the absolute infinitive plus the imperfect with the negative 18! for the strongest type of prohibition). The information of utmost importance, from both a moral and en ontological stand- point, is reserved for last and set ine thiastic frame. The final, hence especially emphatic, words of thie paragraph: "Dying you shall die!", correspond with the "evil" threatencd by the "tree". This entire quotation functions rhetorically as a preview of the dielogue which opens the next act. The forcefulness with which this conmand of Jehovah-God is formulated creates the expectation in the reader that these words will soon be put to the teet. Bpisode one ends inmedistely after the quotation, leeving the spectre of death uppermost in the reader's mind. Paragraph Five (2.18-20)---Bpisode Two In contrast to the words of 2.17, the direct speech that opens the second episode is not addressed to the man (this should not be implied in translation). It brings up a completely new cubject (i.e. the "helper" for the man); it also differs sharply from the tone of the preceding pronounce- ment (ise, from threatened curse to promised blessing). After the initial observation by Jehovah-God, which acts as tho theme for thie unit ("Zt_is not good for the man to be alone"--the negation is emphatic), the remainder of paragraph five is chiastically structured: A (48) "...@ helper cuitable for hin," B (19a) «.,every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens i © (190) s..whet (the man) would call it i j @" (190) ss.which the man might call it : BI (20a) ...to the bird of the heavens ond to every beast of the ficld At (20b) (no)...helper suitable for him. (inelusio)The extreme. terms of the above chiasis are in focus, emphasizing the lack thet remeine in the man's life ficiency that ie about to be done away with. The stage is thus set for the crestion of vonan. Observe that 88 in the cose of the digression concerning the river: (2.10-44),s0 here we have an interruption which serves, over and above the information which it conveys, to gencrate suspense in the nccount. This tine a flashback is utilized to distance Jehovah-God's resolution from the report cf the plan which he then puts into operotion for the men's benefit. Thus verses %8 and 19 ore not in chronological order; rather, efter verse 18 the narrator shifts back to an earlier point in time when God brings the eninels to man for him tc name. This results in tae conclusion stated at the end of verse 20 ("for the man, there was not found 2 helper suitable for him"), and this, in turn, leads to God's decision as recorded in verse 18. Chronologi- cally, then, verse 18 is followed by verse 21, which is, as the narrator has arranged it, the beginning of the next paragraph. Paragraph Six (2.21-25)=--Hpisode Two (cont.) The first two verses of this paregraph recount a fast-moving sequence of short action clauses (vav-consecutive imperfects) which culminate in the formution of woman and the snstitution of marriage. This series of events concludes with @ referential chias: man: woman her : man ‘The exultant response of the nen dremotizes the point that God's intention as stated in 2.18 has now been fulfilled. The topic befits poetic speech, and so it is. The man's lyric song of praise to/about his wife is denarcated by the threefold appearance of "this" (zo'th), which refers to the women. Whe antecedent is first put figuratively and in parallel phrasing: "Mais (she) now at last (is) bone from my bones and flesh from ay flech!" The second half of this poetic couplet (both sections of which leud the close relationship between the men and vonen) is distinguished by a chisen constructed from 9 pun of the key terns: zB'th (this). «'ishshih (voman) aS'ish (from man) zo'th (this) No more "suitable" companion for man cowld be found (cf, 2.18, 20). Tho narrator then inserts © compent which drews out the implications of the man's intimate relationship to nis wife. As in the case of the previow 50 here the conment ie intended to form s conceptual bridge between the experience and "world" of the audience ond that presented in the narrative. The author's words are set off--in the original, but not necessarily in a transistion--from those of the narrative participant (i.e. the nan) by the transitional conjunction ."al-kén "therefore" und by the non-poctic style of speaking. The key phrase Wone flesh" (referring to the marriage union) is situated at the ond of, the digression for enphasis. The firet Act closes with a description yhich initialiy sounds rather naive, but which in fact has a significant theological as well as literary function. The "nekedness" of the nan and his wife (she is henceforth referred to by her relationship to the and their lack of shame over this situatior(a4) was an outword token of their moral and spiritual purity. It is the last glinpse we have of man in his perfect state, and the contrast with his current condition would not pass unnoticed by readers, The relation between nakedness and shame acts furthermore as a final foreshadowing of the evonts of Act two. Where the disasterous consequences of sin in the life of man is on several occasions depicted in thesc same terms, hovever, with the connotation reversed (4g. 3.7, 10-11, 21). Act two of Fart one is another clearly defined segment of discourse. Tt begins with the introduction of a new primary participant--"the serpent'- vho-is appropriately stationed syntactically at the head of the circumstantial clause which leads off the account. The boundery between Acts ohe and two is also marked by the focal adjectives "naked (2,25) and "cunning" (3,1), which function es transitional "hook words". Although they are not referentially equivalent (es is ugually the case), there is an unmistakable phonological similarity, viz. “riintn and "3rdm This act is composed to © great extent of dialogue, the setting for these conversations having been established in Act one. There is a definite pattern to be observed in the sequence of speech events. Tne serpent starts out, the woman responds, end the man is the third speaker to be introduced. Jehovai-God confronts the three in reverse order: man - woman - serpent. This is followed by another reversal es God pronounces curses upon each one in turn: serpent - woman - man. The conclusion'of this act (vs. 20-24) consists of topics which not only bring the scene to a close, but siso refer in opposite progression to important subjects that’ were discussed in Act one, which fron a dranatic point of view is preliminary to this one. ‘There is no doubt about the boundary between this unit ané Act three (chapter four), for the latter initiates a completely different setting (time/place) and story with the introduction of two new perticipants (Cain and Abel): rograph One (3.1-5)=--Bpisode On: After the introduction of the serpent, whose presence is implied and from a literary perspective also anticipated by 2, 19-20, the paragraph reverts to dialogue. The conversation is comprised of three "turns", each preceded in normal Hebrew narrative fashion by an explicit quote margin: (7) And (the serpent) said to the womans. And the women said to the serpent... And the serpent said to the wonan It is important for en understending of the nature of the temptation Gneluding its ultinate success) to recognize the formal relationships between 3.155 and the original permission/prohibition given in 2.16-17. The overall pattern of correspondences is shown below: QONTRADICTION 3.1 (Serpent) -: > 2.16 3.2 (woman) 3.3 (ionen) AvEITON 2 3.45 (Serpent) ~In brief, here is what app eat tronsPorns God's generous allowance (“of every tree of the garden you may, frecly eat") Ante a harsh proscription ("you su-t not eat of cay tree of the garden"). The imitiel modal conjunction ‘eph ki (Wis it really true that") sets the tone for the entire argunent, th’ purpose of which is to disparage ond throw doubt om God's word. Furtherncre, by phrasing the question in the third person 5 God said" versus “must you not eat") and in the form of a dependent object clause, the serpent shifts the focus suay from the content of the commana to its propriety, which nay be evaluated independently of the imperatix force of "do" or "don't do". Although implicitly denying the truth of the serpent's insinustion, the wonen appears to adopt it modal perspective, namcly, an eeceptance of the premise that she is in a position to judge the equity of God's motives. She thus chooses to diminish tho liberality of his permission by svotracting from tho scope and forcefulness of bic words in 2,16: “From the fruit (instead of “from all the fruit") ssewe moy eat (ineteod of “freely eat"). She doos not even mention the forbidden treo by name, but rather employs 2 circumlocution: "the tree which is in tho middle of the garden", Next she augments the originel prohibition (2.17) by adding the interdiction, "nor shell you touch it", A point worth noting in thie connection is that when referring to God's permission, she cmploys indirect discourse, but on reaching the prohibition, she imuediately assumes the serpont's third person perspective and reports what "God said" in direct speech. She thus directly sttributes the proscriptive addition to hic. Syatactie parallelion accents the contrasts inherent in her reply: From the fruit of the tree... = we may eat, (but) from the fruit of the tree... - "You must not eat from it and you must not touch (on) it” The serpent responds with another lying contradiction, thie one even move forceful than the firct: ''You will not surely die!" This contains the sone euphasis as the origins] (2,17), only at is strongly negotivized. Atributing to himeclf an insfght into the divine mind, the serpent advences a plausible reason for his contrary assertion to God's prohibition, subtly suggesting in the process that the Istter is being selfish ond deceitful in the natter: "For God knows that in the day you eat of it..." (the underlined portion is also a rep tition fron 2.17). lexieal chisem reinforces the reversal which tho serpent in proposing knows =; God :: God : knowing ang the goal of eating the fruit (throughout assumed to be beneficial) is placed emphatically at the head ofthe srgunent: ",..knowing good snd evil", By attempting to demonstrate that thore is » discrepancy between what God ‘Iknows" ond what he says and by implying that this is motiveted purely by self-interest, the serpent secks to dissipate the illocutionary force of God's prohibition (i.e. thet it is on idlc threat eince it is based on false notives). The success of his endeavor is immediately epparent.Paragraph Two (3:6-7)-=-Bpisode dne (conte) There is a sudden shift in discourse type (from dialogue to narrative) and in personal perspective (external to internal) as the first sin is recorded. Parallel syntax in o polyeyndetic series of object clauses orders ‘the successive steges in the women's downfall, lier attraction to the fruit is motivated by an ever increasing degree of sophistication: good = the tree = for food (physical) pleasant = it = to the eyes (esthetic) se (intellectual) desirable - the tres - to make w. This.is followed by a swift event sequence which occurs st the peak of the rrative action of Acts one and two (the clinax in dislogue takes place later), The episode concludes with a etring of events (v. 7) which is similar in nature to the ones just presented (v. 6), nemely, mental perception (eyes opensd, ete.) leading to physical reaction (sewed leaves, etc.). The reversal in expectations that occurs is ironic: the only "knowledge" which the man and his wife gaincd (cf, 3.5) from their experience was thet they were naked"==they fealized that they were now einful, living in @ relationship to God thet was contrery to his will. The contrast’ forged with the close of the last act is striking: (2.25) = nakedness - sheme —--sinfulness (3.7) + nakedness + shane +sinfulness The placement of these observations is significant, for each is found at the conclusion of a major discourse unit (i.e. act one, episode two and Act two, episode one). Episode wo ph Three (3.8212). Episode two begins abruptly following the seme event pettern as the preceding paragraph: perception (heard) -=-> reaction ("hid"). ‘The differ- ence is that here we hove a new (if somewhat ambiguous) time setting: "in the wind of the day". Now, as in Act one, the deity is referred to as Jehovah-Gods it is he who must take the initiative to restore conmunication with his estranged creatures. In episode one of Act two, "God" (!°13him) was uscd exclusively. The dislogue between Jehovah-God and the man is divided formally (by the introductory quote margins) into four turns: God - man - God - man. Functionally, however, that is, charted according to the dominant illocutionary force of cach speech act, we find ® pattern involving two sete of throe: God (9) = acces: The force of “where” is really why" (i.e. are you hiding), ond the answer, which is obvious to both parties is intended to expose the violation. Han (10) - EXCUSE: Instead of confessing, the man tries'to reason out of his guilt (nakedness --» fear --» hiding). Note the similarities to y. 8: report - recall. Man's recognition of nakedness and hie feeling of shane is again employed ae a token of moral impurity (cf, 2.25, 3.7). God (118) = REJE TION; The maa has condenned himself; the realization of his naked condition presupposes hie guilt.Goa (110) CCUSATION: This time the accusation is put point blank, quiring only @ yes/no answer. Men (12a) - SKCUSE: Still no confession. Instesd there is & veiled counter-charge: the wonan, provided by God, caused it all. Lan (12b) - CONFESSION: Only when he has nowhere to turn ~ does the man finally admit the truth. As 2 "confession", however. it is still flawed by the attempt to disclaim personel responsipilit: ‘There are two other features of formal significance in thie dialogue: a) God speaks only in the form of questions which, due to his omniscience, are alvays rhetorical, that is, they are designed to evoke 2 particular response rather than to elicit information; b) focal items of content in the conversetion arc foregrounded through initial placement in the clause: “your sound” - "naked" - "from the tree which..." the woman whom..." Paragraph Four (5.13)---Upisode Iwo (cc The two turns of thie skort par tured according to function in the same way as the preceding two turns: ACCUSATION (God) - EXCUSE (Woman) - CONFESSION (Woman). Other clear simi- larities in form between the two units are these: 2 ‘aph (ive. God - woman) are struce a) God's use of @ question to nake his accusation; b) fronteshifting of the "excuse", nazely, "the serpent"; and c) use of the exact sane words of "confession" (i.e. v3'GknG1 “and 1 ate") 0 conclude the parsgraph (a device termed epiphora). Paragraph Five (3.14-15)---Episode Two (cont.) This brings us to the climax of the conversation, The tempter is confronted by Jeiovah~Ged, only tiie tine there is no interrogation. Instead, a eovtence of condenmation is passod innediately. It teker the form of a curse, however, one that is rietoricelly structured to highlight the main points of its content. After the initial pronouncement ("Cursed (be) you there is a synonynous couplet that refers litersily to the serpent's present node of locomotion, but which figuratively suggests concone who has suffered a totel and huniliating defeat (cf. Lev 11442, Te 49.23, Mic 7.17, Pe 72.9): "on your belly you will move auet you will ext..." The referential scope widens as the core of the message is reached. After foregrounding the thometic topic, i.e. "enmity", through front-shifting, the central participants are related not only syntacticelly, but also by means cf the familiar literary patterns of parallelism and reversal to help pin- point the salient contrasts:ne) you «s). +(/) woman your seed (S).ervereseze (i) hor seed (8 = serpent oriented ne SMB) 208 ¥ + vounn sosentea you (et) it is significant thet the alterstion in pattern (accented by asyndeton) occurs at the point where the mesniag-reference shifts from collective to individual and the focal opposition from "you-vorsus-ske" to "you-versus-he". Phe original figure statce the letter iseue more directly thon natural English allows: "He will crush you (with respect to) the head, and you will erush him (with respect to) the heel." Use of the came verb in Hebrew (shliph) within the same syntactic frene (S = V-0~ a) causes the antagonists to stand out even more sharply. Eoregraph Six (3.16)---Bpisode Two (eont.) Frontvehifting of the new edéreesce coupled with ssyndeton (i.e. no yay) harke the post-clinax break in the conversation. God's decleration of Dulishnent upon the wonan consists of twe couplets, each peir heving Senanticelly related terme whicn are structurally potterned, The first couplet, each ender of which features sayndeton, is on instance of synonynous parallelism: "tnereasing Iwill increase your sorrow and your conception, In sorrow you shall bedr éhildren." Whe corresponding, mutually reinforcing elevents are: se. labor/birth" by netoayny) sorrow. --concéption ( sorrow-------e-bear children he second couplet, euch member of which begins with a vav conjunction Gin contrast with the first sot), ie cusposed of antithetical predications: “and to your husbend (shall be) your desire, (8) and = but) he (emphatic) will rule over you.” dere the referential correspondences are arrenged chisstically, according to case" relation, ive. (P = patient, B = event, A = agent) husband (P)-, he (4); desire (E)-. rule (2) you (4) you (F) Episode Ps As in paragraph six, co also kere the addressee (nen) is placed in initial position to help signal the discourse bouadary. ‘There is also a contrast in the meaning of the adjoining (tail-head) uéterences of paragraphs six (final) and seven (firet 2 (conte) Fagraph Seven (3.17219 he shall rule over you (wife)"~--DOMINION yorr wife" UBM ISSION you (husband) have listened to.‘The final words of the reason (disobedience) which provokes God's judgment regrounded in direct cpscch: “You must not eat from it!" The curee itself is structured in the shape of two interlocking chiasms which reiterate the content in poetic fors and build up to 2 clinex in verse 79, ‘namely, the cud result of man's disobedience, whics is dest 4 (7c) “cursed is the groun B (174) "In sorrow you because of you." thistles it will produce for you" } wild eat che plane of ene soena"-.J% & \ : G (i8e) 9 Bi (19a) " (19>) "until ty the sweat of your face you will eat bread| ground b (49c) “for from out of At you were taken’! br (198) “tor gust (are) zon '(19e) "and to dust you will return. Within the larger combined structure, there are internal patterns nanifesting cither referentisi/lexical perallelian or reverse] in alternating order (as shown on the right of tho diagran), for exemple (teking the lower chiasn): a you round bite Co 4 ; Sd) Here we have the sane emphasic on "ground (etc.) as is present in the account ci man's creation (2.5-7). syou dust....eyou Considering God's curse se a whole (i.e. paragrophs 5-7, verses 14-19), ono can @iscern © rough chiastic scheme which cranizes the content. It is for the most pert of & referential nature; thet is, the correspandences ere dased wore on a general synonymity rather then exact lexical or syntactic likeness. Nevertheless, the overall pattern ic recognizable, ordering the @iscourse and contributing, at least on the sudliminsl level, to its cethetic quality and dromstic inpact: (14) move on belly (ise, ground), oat dust B (15) "enmity": wouan-seryent, seed of woman-seed of serpent © (16) sorrow in prognaney, domestic rule : &' (17) gorrow in lator, economic toil Bt (48) enmity between ground and nan: thorns-crops 1 (19) return to gr und, you are & Zach of the to series (A - ¢ and ct ~ A*) begin with a reason-result sentence initiated by the conjunction “because! (ki) which leads up to the terrible word “oursea" (arin). ~(ROD Paragraph Bight (3.20-21)---Bpisode Two (cont.) ‘There is another break in the prevailing discourse type as this short segment of narration is inserted into the flow of dielogue. In addition to providing some relief in tie dramatic tension, which has remained at = high level since the beginning of this episcde, this brief report sketches & welcome picture of ruconciliation--between husband and wife, between God and mon--just after the righteous sentence of punishment upon mankind and prior to its realization in the expulsion fron den. These two verses are obviously related, not only to each other, but also to the larger nerrative of which they are a pert. Moreover, it is clear thst they have @ significance that goes beyond their literal content. First there ie the striking juxtaposition of contrasting imares between this and the former unit: death (dust - 19) versus life (mother of all the living - 20), The latter is foregrounded through paranonasia: Eve (chavvah) "life" and "Living" (chy), both situated in prominent clause-final position. lLexicel parallelien links the initial clouses of both verses: man - hie wife :: man - his wife And finally, we have one more appearance of the recurrent image of nakedness (here implicitly). As in the case of earlier instances, so here it occurs at the close of a discourse sequent. A naive nakedness (2,25) was the outward token of inner purity and peace with God. when nakedness is morally iscerned and produces shame (3.7, 5.10), it stems from disobedience and rebellion against God. Wow God, on his own initiative, covers the nakedness cf his creatures. This action demonstrates not only a providential concern for their physical welfare, but on a spiritual level also his desire that the nark of their alienation from him be done away with, Here is forgiveness in response to the act of faith (i.e. the man names his wife "Life" while under the expressed sentence of death), which is founded on God's promise of victory (3.15). Paragraph Wine (53.22-24)---Bpieode Two (cont.) This final unit of Episode and Act two begins with dialogue, but unexpectedly breaks off at the end of verse 22 to round out the segnent in narrative (vs, 25-24), Jehovah-Got's assessment of man's condition is an ironic reflection upon the perverted truth of the serpent's tempting words: (3-5) "And you shall be as God, knowing good and evil." (3.22) "Behold the wan (emphatic focus on topic) hes becone as one cf us in kiiowing good and evil." A hypothetical situation ic then recounted in a typical fast-flowing action style that recalls the report of the firet transgression (3.6-7): slest he put out his hand, and he take also fron the tree of life, ty and he Live forever..." and he At this juncture, the anacoluthon appears, appropriately distinguishing intention (stated in terms of negative purpose) from fulfillment: "and he expelled..." This verb, along with s more intense synonym in the parallel clause of 24a, contrasts graphically with the corresponding verbs that wereemployed to describe mon's iri{tial entry into tac garden (2.9, 15). A subtle ajlusion to man's neme (‘8d3n), his oricin ("from there", i.¢. the ground - r"aguhh), and bis fete (to til1 the erounc") represents the navrator's Somewhat rueful observation on the tragic reversal of fortwncs wnich hes teken place (ise. prior to the Fall, man controlled the soii (2.15), now it conie hin (.17=18)) aS well es © terec comment on the future mortality of hunanity. ‘The images of separation which bring this act to = sonbre close G.e. the cherubin guards and the whirling sword of fire) reslize yet another pointed contrast wits the verious scenes of fellowship end harmony which run throughout chapter two. 4 lest ironic touch is spplied in the concluding word of the chapter/act: "Life™ (chayytu)-~the lest reminder of = life that was lost. find yet this word holds at {he seme tise a muted promise for the future~. & hope proclai:ted in tho uoming of Bve (v. 20), @ hope partially and inper~ fectly fulfilled in the birth of Cain (4.1). Such is the paradox of God's gracious providence. ‘The final two paragraphe (849) of this chapter, which function as the denovement of the second Act, also present a structured sumiary of Act one (2.4225), which was preparatory to it, This eummery is chisstic in nature, yentioning three groups of topice (thrce in ech group) in the reverse order of their occurrence in Act one: (3-20) Sve (1) 4 G.21a) skins of animals (2) G.2%b) cover nakedness (3) 25) nakedness w/o shane! '2f) women created (1) :19f) animals named (2) G "¢ @ (3.22a) mon “knowing good and evil" (1) B (3,22b) he might take frou the tree of life (2) (3.22c) he night Live forever/bIFE (3) (2.17) eat and you wilt die/DBRTH (3) BY (2.9b) treo of knowing good and cvil (1) (2.9a) ‘tree of life (2) (3.238) man expelled fron Eden (1) an to till he ground (2) (3.23e) nan is from the ground (3) (2.8) man placed into Eden a) ct (2.7) man is from the ground (3) (2.5) no wen te till the ground (2) © (3.235) Ym addition to the lerger chiasn thet orgenizes the whole, the corresponding groups also exhibit (pertisl) internal chiasas as follows! Goto: Soap Bor 4 1: Fr Bott 22 3 The patterns are not perfect, thst ie, only two of the three members are involved in ony instance, but tioy dotcontrdute to this elaborate metlod of Sunmary end recall which artistically links Aete one ané two together. us: ‘The Implications for Like any meaningful discourse, Genesis 1-3 is characterized by these four generic properties: segmentation, connectivity, prominence, and errangenent. The first three are relatively distinct in nsture:| = well- formed text is normally divided up into hierarchically ordered and inter- reluted units; these units are bound together internally ty verious lexical elation(22) and syntactic devices; and certain units on a given level of linguistic organization (from the word right up to the paragraph) are nade more promi~ nent than others of a similar kind. frrangement, however, is a quality that involves all of the other three, and yet it cannot be clesoified in terms of any one characteristic alone. Meny of the fornal patterns discussed above give evidence of an artist's skillful uand shaping the historical record for rhetorical ends. These alterations are not of substance, but rather of form; they concern the manner of telling, not the matter; they affect the style of the discourse (how it is told), not its factual content (wnat is told). It would not have been practical (or even possible) to set down in detail every- thing that transpired at the beginning of time. Instead, the inepired author makes a selective rocord of those primeval cvents-~he narrates only what is most importent, and he arranges his meterial in a woy that best suits his communicative objectives, There is thus more to the account then e simple chronicling of incidents--a history which, though it manifests segmentation, connectivity, and prominence, dees not carry the soue effect or evoke the sane esthetic response within the reader. It is that elusive difference between the artistic and the corimonplace which we have tried to explore, st least in @ preliminary way, in this study. what then are the implications of this literary-structural analysis for those who are engaged in the task of translating the message of Genesis 4-3 into another language? Some conclusions sre obvious in principle, though they may not always be so easy to cerry out in practice. In the Appendix T cutline the points regarding epecific forms which need to be considered at some stage of the translation process, What follows are some observations of a more general nature. ‘The major segments of the SL text (e.g. the prologue, Acts one and two with their respective perearephs) end how they are related to one another should probably be reflected, either explicitly or implicitly, also in the translation, for this is how the author intended his message to be structured. practical difficulties might arise, however, in cases where the translation team does not have 2 working knowledge of the originel and therefore must depend on other translations for = base text/texts. In situations where none of these published versions happens to correcpond with an analysis such as this, a decision has to be made. Either adopt the majority reading of the texts available in the interests of expediency (so as not to confuse the translators), or if one has the time ta teach them to understend how ond why the original differs from the others (to the extent that they can adequetely defend this position), then follow that interpretation. Formal fidelity, where not unnatural’ in the RL, is a legitimate goal of translation--provided thet the translators have consistently denonstrated the ability to apply the form- meaning distinction in their work. The ordinary devices for developing cohesion in discourse, whether lexical (e.g. nominal repetition) or syntactic (e.g. complexes of the vav~ consecutive construction), usually do not present mich of a problea in trenslation, as long a5 functionsl equivalents for these arc employed in the RL. If translators really understend the concept of "asturalness" and have been exposed to a sufficient number of good, coherent texts in their language, they should not find it too difficult to duplicate this effect in transition. This must be emphasized, of course, right at the beginning of translator- training programmes. Zxtra-ordinary cohesive features, howver, such as structural patterning, are another matter; the correspondences between lang- ueges are not always 50 easy to determine. But such aspects of style would in most instances be more profitably analyzed as special cases when consider- ing textual "arrangement".Prominence in discourse is a factor which rarcly gets the atteation it deser Vteansiaticn. Yor ene thing, even if the translator knows a bik of Hebrew (or Greek), 3t ties a lot of detaijed textual snalysis before one develops a facility for recognizing genuine instances of foregrounding and then becomes faniliar with haw such devices operate in the language. On the other hand, if the treasletor must dopend upon a translation (nto duglish, French, otc.) for his base text, the problem becomes even more acute because no translation to date hac edequete!; come to grips with this aspect of interlinguel messege tranoziscion. ‘ost versions mies (or simply ignore) a great deal of the highlighting presert in the originel, while others misplace or distort it in other weys, Furthernore, even if the’ prominence of the Si text were satisfactorily pointed out, for’ instance, in a commentary, there Would still remain the tine, efvort, and ckill required to discover equivalent features in the RL. Wany translation personnel, however, ere not suffici- ently trained in their own language to do 8 satisfactory job. Prominence, whether referential or enctive, phonological, lexicsl, or grammatical, thus stande as one of the most fornidsble barriers to the realization of genuine Ndynamic-equivalence" translations. The argurent that form cannot be trans- lated is not really valid. It is true that SL forns usually cannot be renéered literally, (9) but functions] correspondences can always be found-~ provided that one knows precisely what the function is and has the tine, voility, and encouragenent to discover the appropriate forms for expressing it in his language, Perhaps the most skepticism with regard to the utility of the results of a litersry-structural analysis comes in connection with the unique aspects of a text's arrangement, Genesis 1-3 was shown tc be permeated by literary patterns of Yarious sizo and suape. Parallelism and chiaem were predominant, the two often appearing in conjunction with each other to add e touch of aeauty or impact to the text. Whethcr or not such structures were actually perceived by the original receptors (or oven consciously intended by the author) is largely irrelovant since no one todsy is in a position to take ay audience somple. The very fect of their multitude and multiformity in both the Old ond the New Testament nokes it quite evident that these compo- sitional techniques are @ prominent stylictic characteristic of the Bible and hence one that must at lesst be considered in translation. The question is-= how exactly to proceed? Certainly uvch sore research into this matter needs to be done before even tentative answers can be givon. To what extent, for example, are such structures transferred intact in the translstion process 86 @ naturel product of roproducing in © sutisfactory monner the content of the message? As © general ruice, one could soy that the larger and lese formal 2 pattern is, the greater the likelihood of ite being transmitted without serious modification. On the other hand, very many of the smaller constructs, especially those on the individual verse level, are probably lost due to the non-isonorphic nature of the lengueges concerned, though here, too, given a certain degree of expertise end practise, more correspondences could no doubt be preserved in natural idion. The skeptic could always reply: what's the difference--who cares, or would even notice, whether such ani such @ verse contained a chisam or not-~ or thet its syntactic elements are ordered in the sane wey as in the preceding verse, etc.? Again, whether people care or notice is not the point. ‘The fect id-that a significant structure is there in the original, standing as a chal~ lenge’ to the translator to reproduce the closest natural equivalent in his langusge. These forms were not constructed in 90 elabcrate a fashion simply for the fun of it. They are indeed motivated end purposeful aspects of th nessage. Ferbaps we must honestly sdmit that we Gon't really understané theirfunction in biblical discourse--whether for emphasis, self-expression, art- istry, emotion, thematic highlighting, or whatever--and consequently redouble our efforts to try and figure out what's going on. what is the full complement of literary-rhetorical devices in Hebrew, and what is their significance on both the macro- and micro-linguistic levels of communication? Until we have some answers to questions like these, the criteria of a "goo translation, indeed the very definition of translation, will remain even more elusive than we had anticipated, One thing ie certain: divine influence aside, the dynamion of the nessege of scripture--its impact, beauty, persuasive power, and all the reste- is not merely the result of its content--of "understending" in @ referential sense. It is definitely aleo a product of the structure and style whereby that message was "packaged" and given linguistic life in the original conmuni- “pxgation event, Since form is language-specific to a great extent, perfect equivalence in translation is an utter impossibility. There can only be various aggrees of approximation to the ideel which may be evaluated with respect to the functional priorities that are established for the new context of message transmission, It is hoped that this study, and others like it, will contribute toward the progressive shaping of those priorities. ENDNOTES a TWitWiite acknowledge with gratitude the helpful conments of ay brother, Rey,,Paul Wendland, on an earlicr draft of this paper. Note that my use of the term "structuralist" is qualified by "Literary", This must be distinguished from the school of biblical "structuralien” (D, Patte, R. Culley, et al) which investigates the structure of a text's content and how this relates to the specific theme(s) that is/are being transmitted. For a sample of this type of analysis spplied to Genesis 2 and 3, see Semeia 18 (1980). The focus of my attention is upon the struc~ ture of a text's expression, that is, the various structures which are revealed in the linguistic form of the message and how these relate to the dynamics of interpersonsl communication within on actual situational context, 4, 411 except the first where, instead of a proper name, we find "heavens and earth", There is eso a slight voriation in form at 5.1, which beging: on the book of the generations of..." Buth terns this particular construction « “circumstantial" clause and he points out that it is often found on psragraph boundaries. In this case it appears immediately after the title (Rendall J. Buth, An Introductory Study of the Paragraph of Biblical Hebrew Warretive, M.A, Thesis: The (_, MR Eats OY Tas Studies, 1976, p. 125ff.). ~ Ihave deceribed the methodology of literary structural" analysis at greater length in an unpublished paper entitled, "Analyzing the Structure and Style of a Biblical Hebrew Narrative" (iso. Genesis, chapter 37). 6. Sec H.C, Leupold, Zxposition of Genesis (Vol. I), Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968, p. 53.) It would also be possible to analyze these as separate dielogue paragraphs. I have rather included within the same paragraph the entire conversation between two speakers, as long as the same subject is being discussed. 1 begin a new paragraph when the topic chifte or when @ new spesker is introduced.8. The Hebrew verb translated “desire” (shiig) is problonatic. I believe that in this context it hae @ negative connotation, meaning something on the order of "seek/desire to control/rule" in parallel with the verb in the second member of the couplet and corresponding to the usage in 3 very similar context in the next chapter (4.7). 9. I have questioned the generslity of the assumption thet SL forme cannot be transferred neturally to @ RL in an unpublished paper entitled: n Literaliess Is Idiomatic: Some Significant Correspondences in Grammatical Form Between.2 biblical Source Lenguage and @ Bantu Receptor Tanguage." Please direct sll comments to: Brnst Re Won@land P.O, Box CH-91 luseke, Zambia Sentral Africa _ December, 1981 wendland@zamnet.zmA SUMMARY OF DISCOURSE FEATURES RELEVANT TO THE TRANSLATION OF GENESIS 1-3 arnst Wendland The following is a selection of structural and stylistic features derived from a literary-structural analysis of Genesis 1-3 which, due to their importance in the discourse, need to be taken note of by anyone who intends translating this book (see Separate paper giving the formal analysis of this text), Structural patterns of a primarily decorative nature (as nearly es can determine), or ‘those which are of = large enough scope that they are likely to be tfansferred intact in any type of translation, are not included in these comments. I have also indicated thematic summaries of all paragraph and section units, for these may help translators te treat these segments as coherent and distinct whole within the discourse. All quotations are from Green's Interlinear Version unless specified otherwise. PROLOGUE (1.1-2.3): HOW GOD CREATED ALL THINGS Paragraph One (1.1-1.2). Setting: In the Beginning 1.4 In the beginning God created..." This verse acts as a summary heading to the first chapter, Is there any formal signal for indicating a title in the RL? Thie should not be a marker which is used exclusively for stories that are not true, such as folktales (e.g. Yonce upon a time..."). Since it is a title, verse one is in the foreground and ought not be subordinated to verse two (e.g. GNB: "...when God created..."). ‘The clauses 4.2 "and the earth....ind darkness....And the Spirit of God. of Hebrew narrative are normally joined by "and". This conjunction in the original does not always indicste the passing of time. For example, in the firet instance above, to show the break between verses one and two, it should be left untransleted (in English). In certain contexts, the "end" will have to be rendered as "but" in the RL, especially when a contrast or alteration is involved (e.g. 2.20b). The translator cust always carefully study the rela~ tionship of meaning between clauses and sentences in the original SL and then select connectors (words/phrases) which express the same relationship naturally in the RL. Paragraph Two (1.3-1.5)---Day One: The Creation of Light 4.3 A new paragraph begins here. Does the RL have 2 way of marking either the beginning or the ending of such a larger unit of discourse? If s0, these verbal signals ought to be used whenever boundaries of such a nature are reached (e.g. Chewa employs tsono to indicate that new or important informa- tion is coming up), At the beginning of this and the eight other paragraphs of this chapter, the expression "And God said..." appears to introduce a direct quotation. It should be possible to.find 0 similar way to begin the corre- sponding units alike in the RL (e.g, GNB: "Then God commanded...", but notice that this has to be changed in verse 26 due to the context of the quotation). The name "God" is repeated 35 times in this chapter--in almost every verse, Such repetition helps to tie this discourse segment (to 2.3) together and also puts special emphasis upon the main participant in the account. In most cases it is God who is either saying or doing something as part of his creative activity. Does the RL have @ method of showing this same emphasis upon the major character? Does the RL allow so much repetition, or will another way have to be found to refer to "God" in at least some of the occur rences? The reference system (that is, how to talk about information which(2) has already been mentioned in the narrative) of the RL must be thoroughly studied in advance so that a natural wey of conveying the significance of the SL system of reference can be put into practice. That applies not only to this example, but also to other instances where the narrator speaks about persons, things, and events on more thau one occasion. "Let there be light!' And there was light." It should be possible to find a way of duplicating in the RL the simple, forceful parallelism of this expression, Impact, as this hes in tac original, is part of the "meaning" of amessage--it is one of the functions of the particular language forms chosen by the author to transmit whst he wants to say to his readers. In this case, the paired cleuses are even more emphatic since they occur at the head of a series of similar (but more lengthy) pronouncements, and they also record the first words of God in direct speech. Chewa turns out to be just about as concise as the original: MKuyere!" Ndipo kudayeradi. 144 "God saw...that (it was) good." This is one of several formulaic expressions which recur again and again in the story (c.g. verses 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). Others like this are: "it vas so" (7, 9, 11.46), Mand God called/blessed..." (5, 8, 10, 22, 28), “and there was evening..." (see below). These repeated elements serve to divide up the account into its various units and to give the entire narrative a conse of unity. In some cases the repetition is enphatic, e.g. "God saw...that it was good", referring to the high quality of hie creation. After identifying idiomatic weys of conveying the meaning of such reiterated expressions in the RL (e.g. GNB: "...and it was done"), they should be used--if at all possible--whenever they appear in the original. Notice that the key word of this unit: "light", is foregrounded not only lexically (i.e. through repetition), but also syntactically by means of a shift in word order: "God saw the light that it wae good." Such promi- nence is not limited to the sentence level; often, as here, it reletes to the entire paragraph (thematic focus)+ 1.5 “And there was evening, and thers was morning, th: first day." This formula concludes the account of cach of the six days of creation (see 8 13, 19, 23, 30). Once an adequate wey of communicating the sense of this has been found, the solution ought to be employed on each occasion so as to reproduce the clearly defined section boundaries which characterize the SL narrative, It would also be worth the effort to duplicate in the RL text the poctic parallelism of the SL, if this can be done, o.g, Chewa: adzulo kunada, "In the evening it dawned, maw Kunacha in the morning it lightened, Tepite teixu loyamba. it has gone, the first day." Paragraph Threo (1,6-1.8)---Day Two: The Creation of 2 Done to Separate the Waters in the Sky 1.6 "And God said..."--a new paragraph begins; it ends at the close of v. 8 Repetition, parallel patterning, ond 2 diversity of prepositions are employed to heighten the concept of "separation" which constitutes the thematic focus of this peragraph. In meny languages it will be necessary to shift the expression "and it was so" fron the end of v. 7 to the ond of v. 6, that is, after God's creative pronouncement (see also vs. 9, 11, 15, 24, 30), for that is whore this summary logically fits.@) Paragraph Four (1.9-1,10)-=-Day Three: The Creation of Land and Sea 4.9 "and God said..."--2 new paragraph begins; it ends at the close of v. 10. The referential link between this and the preceding paragraph needs to be mainteined. That is to say, the phrase "the waters under the heavens” (v.9) has tho same referent as "the waters which were under the expanse" (v.8, etc-), Tonga clarifies this refcrence as follows: "the water which is unde? this (i.e. which I have just created) sky...” Paragraph Five (1,11-1.13). Day Three: The Creation of Vegetation 1411 “And God said..."--a new paragraph begins; it ends at the close of v. 13. Notice that this paragraph does not begin a new episode (each episode being thus far determined by a shift of one day in the time setting), but rather reports the second half of the third episode (dey three). This may require a different type of boundary marker in the RL, specifically, an explicit time clause indicating that the day has not changed, ¢.g. "Later (that day)..." Paragraphs four and five are linked (tail to head) ty the common reference +o hearth" (vs. 10, 11), though the RL may need a distinction in vocabulary, e.g. von the soii may there sprout plants" (Chewa). 1.12 “And the earth put forth vegetation (or grasses)..." An important acpoct of the parallelism in this series of episodes is the close connection betweon word and deed--between what God eays and what then comes to pass, There is always @ cloce lexical similarity between the quotation (c.g. v. 11) and the subsequent narrative report (e.g. v. 12). This pattern of mutual reinforcement runs throughout sll of. the episodes and since it is such 0 prominent structural and stylistic feature of the original account, should be preserved in the tranclation (see GNB, for example). Paragraph Six (1.14-1.19)---Day Four: The Creation of the Sun, Moon, and Stars 1.14 “And God seid..." now paragraph begins; it ends at the close of ve 19. Paragraph Seven (1,20-1.23)~--Day Five: The Creation of Air and Water Creatures 1.20 "And God said..."--a new paragraph begins; it ends at the close of v.23. Paragraph Eight (1.2i-1.25)---Day Six: The Creation of Land Animale 1.24 “and God said..."--9 new paragraph begine; it endo at the close of vs 25. The initiel quotations of both paragraphs seven and eight begin in a similar way. This correspondence thus makes the onset of direct speech in cight nore prominent, e.g. Tonga: "in the water let there be....ind also on the land let there be... : Paragraph Wine (1,26-1,27)---Day Six: The Creation of Nan 1.26 "and God said..."=-a new paragraph bogine; it ends at the close of v. 27. This paragraph does not stert off a new episode. Rather, as inv. 11, it initiates the second half of the ectivity which takes place on the same day. The sequence of impersonel subjects which have occurred up till now ie broken as God says: "Let ue make..." This alteration of pattern may have to be marked in some langusges as the climactic point in a series, e.g. Tonga: "Now let us make...” (of. CNB).1.27 “And God created man in his own image." This is the high point of the first chapter (prologue). For this reason it is very elaborately structured in the original--like poctry--to give the report extra forcefulness and beauty. The verse divides into three parts, with spscial emphasis on the words "create" and "image": Mand he created God the man in his image; in the Image of God he created hiny male end female he created then." What are the particular forms in the RL that are employed in poetic speech to state the meaning in a more artistic way? A study of poetry or poetic prose needs to be undertaken to discover these, e.g. shifts in word order, change of verb tense, absence of conjunctions and a general economy of expression, repetition (already abundantly present in the original), composition in rhythmic unite, vowel/consonant/tone patterns, lexical and syntactic bal- ence, figurative language, and so forth, It is important not only to discover such stylistic devices in the RL, but also to learn how they are used in conjunction with each other (and in what contexts) to create special cffects with words. These features should be utilized whenever the SL text employs a distinct style in order to highlight the message for a particular purpose, A translation like GNB must be avoided here: it removes all of the verbal emphasis from v. 27 and then subordinates this verse to v. 28 and the direct speech found there, thus eliminating the climax which the author intended. Poragreph Ten (1.28-1.31)---Day Six: God Bleeses Man and Woman 1.28 "and God blessed then and said to then..." the paragraph which begins here ende at the close of v. 31. This paragraph ie also characterized by much patterned lexical recursion, waieh in this inetence resonates with vorses Tin12 end reinforces the content oy suggesting in worde the ongoing cycle of nature, What is the effect of such repetition in the RL? If this style is unnaturel, how might it be improved without alt-ring the content, e.g. by simply eliminating sone of the redundancy, through the use of pro- forms, ete.? Would a uodification of thie nature affect the function of the passage as 9 vhole? 1,29 "And God said..." This quote introduction functions to divide God's blessing into two parts, the first dealing with procreation (v. 28) and the second with provision (v. 29). However, this break may be unnatural in the RL (e.g. Chewa, Tonga), for it might suggest that a new speaker is beginning to talk, which is not the case, or that a new topic is being taken up (the blessing continues here). Notice that the "you" refers to both the man end the woman (cf. v. 28), not only to the former (as a Tonge draft had it). "Behold!" is an introductory exclamation which serves to focus the reader/listener's attention upon what is about to be said. In most (but not all) cases this word refers to mental perception rather than physical, sight. It is found in both direct speech (29) and in narration (30). How does the RL carry out this particular spotlighting function in discourse, eg. through an appropriate exclamation (c.g. Tonga: Neobeni "Indeed"), @ conjunction (e.g. Chewa:Tsono "Now"=logical, not temporal), by front+ shifting the emphatic element (if there is one that stands out), ete: 1,30 “and to every animal..." ‘The distinction in the food appointed for man (29) and that specified for animals (30) will probably have to be marked by a contrastive conjunction at the beginning of v. 30 (e.g. "but").© 4.31 ".,.(4t was) very good.” In the lest occurrence of this stereotyped expression, there is a slight, but significant, variation to mark it as the climactic observation of God's creative activity. Addition of the adverb "very" jus‘ifies the attention c-lled forth by th initial "behold!" at the onset of verse 29. Paragraph pleven (2.1-2.3)--Day Seven: A Day of Rest and Blessing 2.1 “And the heavens and the earth were finished..." The first part of this verse, echoing the words of 1.1, begins the eleventh end final paragraph of the prologue, which concludes after v. 3. This, being the lact unit of a series of likes (i.e, days) and a type of “resolution” of God's activity, may require an appropriate transitional expression to designate this function in the discourse, e.g. Chewa: "In this way...", Tonga: "Therefore...", GNB: "and so. 2.2 “And on the seventh day..." This is the focus of the paragraph, being referred to explicitly five times in two verses. Can this emphasis be maintained in the RL? Exact repetition sounds awkward if the expression “seventh day" is not very concise, c.g. Chewa: tsiku lachisanu ndi chiwiri. 2.3 ..son it he rested from all his work which God created to make" (literal). ‘This final clause brings the prologue to a fitting close by again reminding the listener of its beginning in 1.1. The words are exactly the same, i.c. 2.3 + 2.1 = 1.1, It should be possible to imitate these lexical similaritics, which help to establish the boundaries of the firet major segment of the Genesis text. PART ONE (2.4-2,25): THE MAN AND WOMAN IN THE GARDEN OF EDEN Paragraph One (2,4-2.7)---The Creation of Man in Detail 2.4 "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth..." This is the first of ten occurrences (actually eleven, but one is a repetition) of the formula: "These are the gencrations/nistory of..." These words signe) the beginning (not the ending ae in GNB) of one of the principal parts (or “chaptere") of Genesis, ‘The present section extends to 5.1 where we have the start of Adam's history, thet is, the record of his femily tree. Since the author employed thie formula to divide up hie book into larger units, it is important for the translator to observe these divisions with an appropriate transitional/introductory expression of some kind. -The-context of each opening mey influence to a certain degree how "generations" is to be rendered, whether as chiléren/offepring/nistory/ outcome-consequences of the life of-.., and so forth. But in order to be effective as a verbal cue of a major break in the discourse, the wording ought to renain as uniform as possible wherever it ie found. “.sswhen they were created, in the day when Jehovah-God made..." These two clauses of tine, which are in apposition to one another, help to fix s bridge from the formulaic opening discussed above to the setting, which covers verses 5-6, The temporal reference here reminds one ogain of the first words of the prologue (1.1-2). Part one, "act" one, then cerries on with a description of how things were on esrth before God started putting order into chaos. A new name for the deity, i.c. the LORD (JHWH)-God is introduced here for the first time, and it continues throughout the chapter. This gives unity to the section and distinguishes it from the preceding one, where only(6) ‘the name "God" appears. ‘There is some disogreenent among commentators as to whether the expression ".,.in the doy...” should be interpreted as a syno- nymous restatement of 2.4a or as @ temporal clause introducing 2.5 (RSV, GNB). The literary-structural pattern of the discourse es well es the Masoretic pointing favors the former interpretation, Thus veroe 5 should begin as an independent statement to be introduced by cone general tine reference such as: "nt that time..." Verses 5-6 constitute a description of the setting, which builds up to the focal action of this paragraph in verse 7. Notice thet 5b-6 is not some type of parenthesis or aside as punctuated in RSV. It is rather an important aspect of the author's development, which aims to depict an early stage of God's creation in a manner that is reminiscent of 1.2. 2.7 "And Jehoveh God formed the man..." The transition between verses 6 and 7 should be one that clesrly reflects the gap in time that exists ot this point. One might employ « conjunction which marks the initiation of some new activity (e.g. Tonga: lino or Chews tsono) as opposed to temporal continuity (as "then" in RSV and GNB). 2.5/7 “And there was no man to serve the ground....And Jehovah God formed the man, (with) dust from the ground," The lexical correspondence here (ise. man ground), which is sn instance of word-play in the original, by way of contrast acts to foreground the key event of this opening paragraph: man absent - man present. Perhaps a similar wording for the two clauses can be found in the RL aleo in order to bring out this seme emphasis (it is lost in GNB). Paragraph Two (2.8-2.9). jod Forms a Garden in Ben 2,8 "And Jehovah God planted a garden..." A new paragraph begins here. It is interrupted st the close of verse 9 and resumes again in verse 15. At the break-off point, and in = position of emphesis, the nerrator places “the tree of knowledge of good and evil", » topic which comes to the foreground then in v. 15. Paragraph Three (2, 10-2, 14) und _Eden 2.10 “And a river went out from Eden..." (better: "(There was) a river going out..."). At this point in the report of the garden in Bden, the narrator interrupts hie account to tell the resder some facts about the geography of the place and how this relates to the situation pertaining at the time of writing, particularly with respect to location. The purpose of this aside is to build up suspense by separating the information concerning the creation of the"tree of knowing-good and evil and the command that went along with it. Observe the similar way in which each of the four rivers is intro- duced: "The name of the river is ____."" Does the RL have a special way of indicating Gigressions of this nature, cither at their begin~ ning or conclusion? This is a descriptive paragraph and es such it does not recount events that occurred in chronological sequence with paragraph two (a6 GNB could imply: "A stream flowed in Eden and watered the garden..."). There should thus be a definite break between verses 9 and 10 to help signal the introduction of @ different discourse type, e.g. Chewa transition and tense: "Now a river would pass on out of Eden: Paragraph Four (2.15-2.17)=, God's Command to Yan 2.15 "And Jehovah God took the man and put him..." This verse resumes the” paragraph that was broken off in verse 9, to which it is similar in content and vocabulary. If this correspondence is not adequately marked, the account could read as if God placed man into the garden twice. A clear transitional expression is needed, og. "After God..., he gave him the work of...” (GNB's “then! may be misueading). This paragraph ends at the cose of verse 17. 2.16-7 "You may freely cat....dying you shall die." Here we have the first @ialogue of chapter two, and it ie used to mark s peak in the plot. The words are emphatically stated in the original through the use of patterning (parallelisn, chisem), front-shifting, intensification of the verb, and @ Periodic progression that ouilds up to 9 climax (the crucial vords are left to the last). Comparable literary-rhetoricel devices must be sought in the RL to emphasize the contrasting ideas presented here, especially “eating” and “aying", 86 well as the specch event as a whole. ‘Idiomatic Chewa follows the Hebrew forms quite closely: "Eating you may eat the fruits of any tree in this garden. But only the tree that causes one to know good things and bad things, its fruits you must not eat. If you eat, for sure you will die!" Paragraph Five (2.18-2,20)---The Nan Lacks a Companion 2.18 "And Jehovah God said..." 4 completely new topic ("helper") and speech event begins with this verse. The switch in subject along with an explicit quote introduction signals the oneot of a new paragraph. The paragraph concludes in verse 20 with an euphstic repetition of the same words which are found here at the beginning, thus highlighting this proposition as the thene of the unit: "a helper suitable/corresponding to him!" (ef. GNB). Notice that at this point God's words are not being addressed to the man. ‘Thi unuarked shift (i.e. in the original) from the preceding paragraph needs to be made explicit in the translation, e.g. Tongs: "Now the LORD-God said to himself...” 2.19 "And Jehov-h God formed every eniasl..." At this juncture in the account, @ flashback occurs whic! shifts the reporting of evente back to an earlier point in time, namoly, when the animals wore named. Again (a5 in 2.10), this is done in order to increase the emotive tension and impact by distancing God's resolution (v. 18) from his resulting activity (v. 21), which leads off the next paragraph, ‘The transition between verces 18 and 19 will therefore have to be carefully distinguished go as not to suggest a chronological progression in the narrative here, e.g. GNB: "So he took some soil..." (this error is strengthened ty a shift’ in prominence, i.e. the nominel adjunct "from the ground" to an independent event status: "he took some soil"). These are tvo possible solutions: a) "The LORD-God spoke these words (i.e. v. 18) because this is what happened... (v. 19)"y or b) "The LORD-God said this because when he formed a1 the enimals and the birds from the ground, he brought them to the man to see Paragreph Six (2,21-2.25)---God Creates Woman and Institutes the First Harriage 2.21 "and Jehovah God caused a deep sleep..." & new paragraph begins; it continues to the end of the chapter. 2.23 "This now at last (is) bone..." Direct ‘speech is employed again to highlight a climactic situotion in the narrative. This time it reflects(8) back upon the creation of woman (just reported)--from the man's perspective. The translation should reproduce the emotive intensity of these words (a mood of exulatation, e.g Tongs begins tho speech with an exclamation expressing great delight: "Iiya buya!") as well as their poetic style. The latter is centered in the figure Yoone...flesh”, signifying » complete person, and then anotner pley on words: wonan...mon".’ Both expressions accent the closeness of the physical and emotional relationship between a man and his wife. 2.24 "Therefore s man shall leave his father..." This is another digression by the narretor which interrupts the flow of the account to reiterate the point just expressed by the man and to apply its significance (i.e. the marriage of man and onan) directly to the current audience. If this aside is not formally indicated in some way (quotation marks and line indentation is not enough), the listener will be likely to conclude that these words continue the speech of the man (which ended in v. 23)--as a prophecy perhaps. In Chewa this break is made clear by adding @ post-quote margin at the end of verse 2! ++Those were the words of the man." 2.25 "And they were both naked...” A transitional expression may be needed here to signal a return to the narretive account. GNB does this through the absence of a conjuaction and a shift in definiteness: "g man! (24) to “the man" (25). This final verse is actually a statement of setting/situ- ation rather than of action. It brings the paragraph and the chapter (Act) to a quiet close by introducing a pair of related concepts which are very inpor- tant in the next episode--"nakedness" and "shome't (cf. 3.7, 10). PART THO (3.1-3.24): THE MAN AND WOMAN DISCBEY GOD AND GOD PUNISHES THEM Paregraph One (3.1-3.5)-: he Serpent Persuades the Woman to Disobey God's ‘Counand 3.1 “And the serpent was crafty. A new paragraph “nd episode begin: The translation should manifest a definite break an the story between 2.25 end 3.1. This paragraph concludes in verse 5 at the close of the conver~ sation between the serpent, who initiates things, and the vonan, How does the RL introduce a new participant into the account and how does it formally throw the spotlight on a perticular narrative personage? In the Hebrew, "serpent" 4s foregrounded by being placed at the head of the chapter (verse, clause). ‘The conversation of this paragraph consists of three turns: the serpent speaks (1), the woman responds (2-3), and the serpent completes the dialogue (4-5). It is important to see how this interaction reletes to God's conmand given in the preceding chapter: CONTRADIOTION 3.1 (Satan). > 2.16 3.2 (Wonan)~--—DELBEION “> 2.16 3.3 (idoman)----S2222 208. > 2.17 3.425 (Satan) CONTRADICTION =“ 2.17 The lexical and syntactic correspondences between these two speech events, as well as the subtle differences between them, ought to be reflected in the translation whenever thie can be done naturally, A great part of the meaning and effect of this passage lics in these areas of similarity coupled with slight, but significant, divergence.(9) Chapter three is comprised largely of dialogue, and therefore it is necessary for the transletor to keep in mind how direct speech is to be analyzed: a) WHAT is said, i.e. the content of the speech act(s); b) HOW it is said, ive, the particular form of the speech act; and ©) WHY it is said, i.e. the specific intention of the speaker in saying what he does--the function of the communication. One must also be able to relate the different speech acts to each other in order to see how they fit together to form a. coherent conversation having an overall purpose. A good translstion will accurately and idiomatically reflect these individual intentions and attitudes along with the general purpose of the dialogue in the narrative context in which it is found. "Te it true that God has coid..." thie is not a simple request for information, How would a RL speaker phrase a question thet is intended to show doubt, mock surprise, sarcasm, and ill-will? The feelings and opinions of the spoaker need to be conveyed along with his words, e.g. in Chewa through the use of an initial exclenation: ah! which suggests opposition and a challenge. GNB is good here: "Did God really tell you...?" 3.2 "We may eat of the fruit of the trees..." Notice that God's original permission was stated much more generously: "You may freely eat of every tree..." (2.16), The woman's response thus constitutes @ deletion from the forcefulness an scope of those words. 3.3 "God has said, 'You shall not cat of it...'" The switch to direct speech is significant, for it attributes the false "addition" (see Giagram above) to God himself: "...nor shall you touch it..." (of. 2.17). However, the embedded quotation may be difficult to follow or unnatural in sone languages, in which case it will have to be removed. 3.4 “Dying you shall not die!" Stan's contradiction is put just as forcefully as God's prohibition (2.17). Often a RL will have an idiomatic way of making e strong denicl--without having to go to the oxtent of GNB: "That's not true..." Both Chews and Tonga, for example, follow the Hebrew pattern quite idionatically, ¢.g. Chews: "NO! dying you'will not aie at all! Paragraph Two (3.6+3.7)= and Its Bffects 3.6 Mand the women saw..." A now paragraph begins. The account shifts from dialogue to narrative in which verbs of perception are followed by verbs of physical action. 3.7 "And they knew that they were naked...” The mention of nakedness in this context calls to mind the contrest in 2.25, Both references occur at the end of a major discourse unit. Ina similer way, "And the eyes of both of thom were opened” recalls the serpent's promise in 3.5. Any corre- sponences in vocabulary or ‘syntactic structure between such parallel passa- ges ought to be retained to the extent thet this does not result in an unnaturel style in the RL.(10) Paragraph Taree (3.83.12) 3.8 “and they beard the sound of Jehovah God..." A narrative introduction leads to a dialogue between God rnd the man. The conversation is composed of four "turns": God - man - God - man, with the dominant intention of each speech act falling into parallel sets of three: Goa (9) - accusarqon God (17b) = ACCUSATION Man (10) - BXCUSE Man (42a) - EXCUSE God (11a) - REJECTION Man (12b) - CONFESSION All of God's utterances are in the form of questions, but they do not really request information. Rather, they require a certain response, that is, they seek to draw out a confession from the man: “Where are you?"’= "why are you there?" "Who told you...?” = (response) "Nobody =-- “Have you eaten (response) "Yes..." The same effect should be transmitted by the correspon- ding speech acts in the translation, If this cannot be done by means of the question form, then emphatic direct statements must be used instead. The conversation between God and the man ends in verse 12, Paragraph Four (3.13)---God Confronts the Woman 3.13 "And Jehovah God said to the woman..." In this paragraph of a single verse, the major speech act intentions follow the same pattern 25 the second given above: ACCUSATION (God) - EXCUSE (Woman) - CONFESSION (Women). Similarly, the "accusation" takes the form of a rhetorical question, but with greater emotive intensity: "whet is this that you have done?!" = Chewa: “Gay you, what have you done here--why did you do it?!" (i-e. you shouldn't have done so). The woman emphasizes the one (i.e. serpent) upon whom she tries to shift the blame--just as the man did to her (linguistically through front-shifting, v. 12a). Waat devices(s) dovs the RL typically employ to draw special attention to a particular elenont in the clause? Chewa end Tonge again sclect the same technique ax the Hebrew: "Tue serpent it is the one who..." Notice that the "confession" of both the mon and the wonen reinforce each other by being exactly the same: "...and I ate." In both instances, this expression marke the end of the paragraph unit in which it Paragraph Five (3.14-3.15) the Serpent 3.14 "And Jehovah God said to the serpent..." A now dialogue paragraph begins and continues through verse 15, which is the climax of this entire series of speech events. God's investigation (vs. 9-13) is completed, now the judgment begins (vs. 14-19). God's curses are stated in poetic form (e.g. balanced repetition, figurative longuage, emphatic word placement), and this calls for the use of equivalent Aevices in the RL in order to produce the same beauty end impoct--not as in GMB which has removed virtually all of the literary qualities of these words in the process of transmitting the content in English. 3.15 "and I will put enmity..." The rhetorical structuring and rhythmic speech are most intricate in this verse, which promises future victory, and ite opposite in verse 19, which prophesies the universal punishnent of death threatened in 2.17. Here in 3.75, @ sequence of pareliclisme and revereals function in harmony to foreground the crucial oppositions that are under consideration: (sce top of next page)a you. seeeeees woman your seed shor seed se nese epyour ond you ee Is it possible to highlight these personal contrasts by using the samo or different formel techniques in the RL? In Tongs, for example, a naturel vay of rendering the lst two clauses turns out to correspond quite closely with the Hebrew, which states the conflict more directly than good English will allow: shis heel, “He will crush you (with respect) to the head, and you will bite him (with respect) to the heel." Paragraph Six (3.16)-. Gurses the Wor 2 16 "He said to the woman..." God turns tc address the wonan in a dialogue peragraph of one verse. In the first half. of the verse, emphasis is placed upon the wonan's pain/sorrow in childbirth; in the second half, her relationship to her husband is stressed. In my opinion the two halves are related by an additive ("and" or better: left untranslated) rather then a concessive connection (e.g. GNB: "in spite of this", RSV: "yet"). Paragraph Seven (3.17-3.19)--~God_Ourses the Man 3.17 "And to the man he saids.." The paragraph which begins here continues through verse 19, The addressee (men) is foregrounded ac in the pre- ceding paragraph, where the wonon vas epoken to, Note the special emphasis upon the concept of "eating" in the pronouncement (17-19); the repetition echoes God's initial command not to eat. 3.19 “,.,until you return to the ground..." ‘The additional artistic pattern= ing of the latter portion of thie verce would suggest that it too, Like verse 15, constitutes 2 high point in God's judgment: you return to the ground tn) for fron it you were taken 3 x for dust (ere) you iV and to dust you will return = \// Observe that in this passage each pair of substantives is arranged either in parallel or in reversed form with respect to onother set. All four clauses closely link men ("you") with his huvble origin "dust", ete.) and ultimate destination. There is thus an unmistekable resonance established with the report of man's creation (2.7). This correspondence along with the focal comparison should be apparent also in translation, Paragraph Bight (3.20-3.21)-. The ign Names His Wife "Eve"; God Clothes Then 3.20 This short paragraph of narrative interrupts the direct speech which comprises most of this chapter. ‘The focus is upon the naming of the wotian, an event which is highlighted by both syntactic placement and a sound play involving the name "Eve" (="Lige”) ond its meaning: "mother of ell the Living". Bach of these expressions is situated in a prominent position at the cha “of its clause.(a) Paragraph Nine (3.22-3,24)---God Drives the Man and Woman from the Garden ‘and Sets 6 Guard There 3.22 “And Jehovah God said..." This paragraph brings chapter three ("act" two) to a close. The content of God's speech rec.l1s the temptation of the woman by the serpent in verse 5. All lexical correspondences should be retained in the RL if possible. This holds true for 411 of the other similarities in wording between chapters two and three, for the former is in many respects a dramatic prelude to the latter. 3.23 “Therefore Jehovah Goa sent hin out..." To foreground the act of expulsion from the garden, the account abruptly shifts fron direct speech to narrative at the beginning of this verse. The RL will probably have a different method available for emphasizing this event, which is e1so stressed through repetition at the onset of verse 24. Another important concept that is reiterated here is the allusion to man's origin as well as his fate---to return to "the ground from which he was taken" (cf. 3.19). 3.24 ".,,tree of life." It is significant that this chapter, which recounts the origin of death, should end with the word "life". Looking back on past events, the word is ironice-the exact opposite of man's just fate. Yet looking immediately ahead, the word holds out a glimncr of hope for the future =~2 hope apparently (but not actually) realized in the birth of Cain (4.1), which begins the next mejor discourse unit ("act three).NERO 0 Participants in Africa Region Translation Workshop FROM: Ernst R, Wendland DATE: 6/1/82 SUBIEOT: Genesis - Discourse Considerations I have been ascigned the sbove topic for precentation at our forthcoming Workshop in February. In preparation for this, I am circulating a paper entitled, "A Literary-Structural Analysis of Genesis 1-3". I hope that this will reach you in tine to give you an opportunity to read it through before coming to Nairobi. Z do aot plan to consider 911 of this material in our Workshop. Rather, Lhave prepared for our discussion an "Appendix" in which I summarize the points that have, in ay opinion, the most relevance for translators as they tackle the discourse features of thie text. This summary will be distributed at the Workshop to guide our study of Genesis 1-3. However, since the Appendix for the most part simply lists results and does not go into detail on how they were derived, e.g. with respect to paragraph boundaries, I thought thet I should provide you with my full analysis to put you in a better position either to agree or disagree with what I've cone up with. So if you have the chence before we meet, make a note of all your corrections, additions, and other comments so that these may be discussed at the point where they apply in these three chapters. I am looking forward to seeing all of you again in Nairobi. Best wishes for the New Year. Sant Brnst R. Wendland