|
Yawn.
Van Wolde is a great scholar, but she always seems intent on sensationalizing everything she does. This is not news, it's not even a new interpretation. The Bara has always been understood as a temporal clause, not as an independent primary clause - the problem isn't one of interpretation, it's a problem of translation, getting a good English construction that conveys the meaning.
The only thing she's really done here is demonstrate that the standard interpretation (of separating out) has parallels with other creation narratives from the Ancient Near East. That's important, but it's not a "new interpretation [that] is a complete shake up of the story of the Creation as we know it."
|