basic reading of genesis 1:1

I started to do a word-by word analysis of Gen 1 a few months ago, so I'll point out a few things that I found."In the beginning" is missing the article. As you (and Rashi and JPS) note, this would normally imply a construct, "In the beginning of ...". But there are rare cases where this form is used and it is NOT a construct.The second word, "created" is pointed as a Qal perfect verbal form. It is NOT pointed as the participle "creating" as Rashi translates it (and as it should be if the first word is in construct). But there are some rare cases where a verbal form is used as a participle.The third word is the subject, Elohim.So in the first three words we have some awkward grammar. It could be "In the beginning of God's creating of ..." (Rashi, JPS, Arach) or it could be "In the beginning God created ..." (most other translations). Both are defensible, and both rely on rare grammatical usage.It seems to me that the Rashi/JPS translation has more problems than the other:
1) If Rashi's translation is correct, the "bara" should be pointed differently OR there should be at least one additional word in the phrase to repair the grammar.
2) Starting with v. 3 (and then God said), the clauses are all in the preterite (waw-consecutive). This preterite sequence needs a referent in the perfect to start it, and "bara" in v. 1 is the only candidate. This means that "bara" must function as a verb, not as a participle.So I think the traditional translation "In the beginning God created ..." is the best fit to the grammar.Next points:
1) The preterite construction implies that the verbal action "created" is completed before the next action, which is "and then God said" in v. 3.2) "heavens and earth" is generally a "merism" for "everything".So I would translate it:
"In the beginning God created everything." (and this is finished before v. 3 where He says "let there be light").How can this be? V. 2 seems to be a circumstantial explanatory clause, describing what things were like after the initial creation. Everything was created, but was "waste and empty", i.e. it was unfinished. The rest of the account from v. 3 onward seems to be a "finishing" of the creation, all described from a reference frame on earth.Edited by kbertsche, : typo

No, this follows the normal grammar of the preterite (waw-consecutive). [Note: the preterite (waw-consecutive) is the usual form for narrative. It implies a consecutive sequence of events.]The grammar of the waw-consecutive construction works as follows:
The first verb in the narrative is in the perfect (e.g. "bara" ="created" in 1:1)
The subsequent verbs in the narrative have an IMperfect form, with a "waw" prepended to the verb. But the verb is actually translated as a perfect, with "and then" prepended to it. (e.g. "wa yo'mer" = "and then said" in 1:3)Since "and then God said" in v. 3 follows this construction (waw + imperfect), it must refer back to a perfect form earlier in the account which has no waw. There are three possibilities for which verb this is:
1) the "bara" in 1:1, which means that "created" functions as a perfect verb, not a participle, and the translation must be "In the beginning God created".
2) possibly the "hayeta" in v. 2, which would have to be translated "became". This means that v. 2 is a main clause, not a circumstantial clause. Vv 1-2 would then be translated either "In the beginning of God's creating of the heavens and the earth, the earth became waste and empty" or "In the beginning God created ... And the earth became waste and empty". But this view has a problem: if the verb is used to mean "became" there should be a "beth" prefix before the predicate "tohu wa bohu", according to my PhD Hebrew friend.
3) possbily an implied verb which is not explicit.The first seems to me to be the best fit to the text.Edited by kbertsche, : clarificationEdited by kbertsche, : clarification

I don't think it's nearly so obvious or firm. There are three main possibilities for the grammatical function of the first verse, and these affect how the rest of the account is read. Here are some of my study notes on v. 1:This is a simple sentence with a single clause. The verb “create” is in the Qal stem, perfect tense, third person masculine singular. The subject is God (elohim). The object is the “heavens and the earth”, which is a figure of speech (a merism) for “everything”.1) The first verse may be a main clause telling us an action which God did prior to the action in v. 3. This is the traditional view, adopted by Luther and Calvin (Waltke, p. 58). This interpretation makes the best sense of the waw-consecutive in v. 3; the first act in the creation narrative is the act of creating the heavens and earth.2) The first verse also may be a a main clause acting as a summary heading for the entire creation account. This is the view taken by Waltke (p. 58). This gives some tension with the waw-consecutive in v. 3; the first act of the creation narrative is now missing, and must be inferred.3) Instead of a main clause, the first verse may be a temporal clause modifying verse 3, “In the beginning when God began to create . God said, “Let there be light” . ” with verse 2 as parenthetical. This translation is followed by Rashi, the Jewish Tanakh, and some other translations and study Bibles, and is gramatically valid (Kidner, p. 43). Alternatively, it may be a temporal clause modifying verse 2, “In the beginning when God began to create . the earth was formless . .” This interpretation was followed by Ibn Ezra (Wenham, p. 11). In this interpretation, the account is not the original creation of everything, but is a re-creation from already existent material. This causes some theological difficulties.Ancient translations all viewed the first verse as an absolute statement, “In the beginning, God created . ” rather than as a temporal clause. Young defends this, and suspects that the temporal clause is chosen by some modern translators because the Babylonian creation account begins this way (Young, p. 20-24).[It seems to me that the first view above is the best fit. I think it's saying that the first act of creation was to create everything; the second act was to create (unveil?) light.]

I agree that light is the first thing given a name, and that this is signfiicant. But is this creation in 1:3 really the first thing created? If so, where did the land and water come from? 1:2 speaks of the waters already existing. On Days 2 and 3, these waters are separated (first from the heavens, then from the land). There is no explicit mention of their being created (or of the land being created). So I see two options:1) the account is NOT a creation of everything, but starts with pre-existing material (waters, and probably land).2) the waters, land, etc. were created in 1:1 as an act prior to 1:3, as part of the creation of "everything" in the beginning.

Can you point to any other biblical examples of this usage with "bara"? I find that "bara" is classed as a "telic" verb, like "die" or "sell", so "only finds meaning at the end of a process". Waltke claims that "bara" only refers to "a completed act of creation" and gives as examples Deut 4:32; Ps 89:12; Is 40:26; and Amos 4:13.(BTW, how do you edit Hebrew characters in this window? I can copy and paste yours, but can't figure out how to edit them.)

I disagree; the article IS important. If the article were present on "beginning" ("ba-reshit" instead of "bereshit") there would much less debate. In this case, it could NOT be in construct and Rashi's translation would not be a possibility. The missing article means that Rashi's translation is a possibility. Is 46:10 uses exactly the same form "bereshit" as Gen 1:1, with no article:
I foretell the end from the beginning (JPS)
(There are at least half a dozen other examples, but this is about the best.) But this is not the issue. Yes, THIS is the issue. To take it as a construct (a la Rashi) requires translating it "in the beginning of the creating of God", i.e. "in the beginning of God's creating". For this "bara" MUST be read as an infinitive. But as you note, it is not an infinitive form. It is a 3d person singular finite verb form. To read this as an infinitive would be EXTREMELY unusual and unlikely. (But not necessarily impossible; Wenham points out that this occurs in Hos 1:2).

Re the missing article in "In [the] beginning": Yes; when a preposition is prefixed to a noun with article, the article disappears as a character and becomes a vowel point. And I agree that it is very easy to mess up. But as my Hebrew scholar friend claims, the first few verses of the Bible would have been widely memorized and repeated, and it is much less likely that the Jewish community would have lost the vowel points on this verse.

The "construct" form shows genitive case (which can show possession), and doesn't need any other markers.
From wikipedia (Hebrew language - Wikipedia):

quote:

---

Hebrew's genitive case is achieved by placing two nouns next to each other. This is called a noun construct ( [smiut]). The second noun can be viewed as an adjective modifying the first noun.
The first noun in a noun construct must be in its construct form. For most nouns, the construct form is derived fairly easily from the normal (indefinite) form:
...
In addition, the definite article is never placed on the first noun (the one in the construct form).

---

I noted that for Rashi's translation "bara" MUST be read as an infinitive, though it is not written as one. But your translation WOULD need some sort of possessive marker, because it would not follow the noun construct paradigm. A construct requires two or more nouns next to each other, as noted in wikipedia. To be in construct, the word "bara" must act as a noun. It cannot do this while a finite verb; the only way for it to act as a noun is to be an infinitive.(Note: there may be some terminology and usage differences between biblical and modern Hebrew. I have studied biblical but not modern Hebrew, whereas I suspect that you are more fluent in modern Hebrew.)

Arach and I discussed this in detail a few years ago in this same thread.As written in the MT, without changing the vowel pointing, the first word can be strictly translated as either:
1) an absolute, "In a beginning", or "In beginning";
2) a construct, "In the beginning of".Arach follows Rashi and translates it as a construct, but this has other problems as we have discussed above.I follow most Christian Hebrew scholars and translate it as an absolute, changing it to "In the beginning." This has different problems.For a good, detailed discussion of the textual issues, see the Word Biblical Commentary by Wenham.

It looks to me like you've already answered this question in Message 54. The vowels on "bara" would have to be changed to make it an infinitive construct. Then it would agree with Rashi's reading. Yes, but the construct form is generally just a shortened form of the absolute, generally only with changes in vowel pointing, not in consonants. And sometimes the absolute is so short that the two forms are identical. So it's often not easy to distinguish. While it looks like a plural form, BDB does not describe it as a plural, but a singular. And instead of "suffix," I think you mean "prefix" ("in").And note that the definite article is missing. The MT (Masoretic Text) says "in a beginning" or "in beginning." But note that this is exactly how one would shorten "in the beginning" to its construct form; if the next word were a noun, the natural way to read this would be "in the beginning of." Yes, as voweled in the MT (Masoretic Text), the second word is a finite verb, a Qal perfect 3rd person singular ("he created").Rashi's translation requires changing the vowels to make it an infinitive construct, "the creating of." Correct, as written in the MT (Masoretic Text). I don't follow. The verb "bara" would have to be changed to a noun for a construct chain; this does not require a prefix, only different vowels. You've got to change the voweling on "bara", turning it into an infinitive construct. I don't think this is what Rashi proposed. Rather, he turned "bara" into an infinitive construct. Then "in the beginning" is in construct with "creating" which is in construct with "God" which is absolute. The first three words then read, "In the beginning of the creating of God," or more smoothly, "in the beginning of God's creating," or more smoothly yet, "When God began to create."But I agree with your reading of the text, not Rashi's. As I explained up-thread, Rashi's reading not only requires changing the vowel pointing, it also removes the first finite verb from the preterite (waw-consecutive) sequence. This is unusual, but not absolutely ruled out, as Arach showed up-thread. So I would judge Rashi's reading as tenable, but less likely than the more traditional Christian reading.ABE: When I use "MT" I mean "Masoretic Text." NOT the "Mechanical Translation" which Arach described a few posts up. (The fact that they shorten this "mechanical translation" to MT is horrible. Why didn't they call it a "literal translation" or something else?)Edited by kbertsche, : clarified MT

With a quick search I find 51 occurrences in 49 verses (2 verses have 2 occurrences). I find 7 in the absolute:Lev 2:12; Ps 105:36; Neh 12:44; "first fruits"
Deut 33:12; "first part"
Is 46:10; Prov 4:7; "beginning"
Job 40:19; "first"But are any of these the same sentence structure as Gen 1:1? Not really, if you want to be strict. I think it's just that when we use the word "beginning" or "first" we are generally talking about the beginning "of" something. It's rare that we talk of "beginning" or "first" in the abstract.

Sorry; I wasn't clear. Yes, the consonant he disappears, but it is reflected in the vowel."In THE beginning." The patah vowel which was under the he remains under the bet.But the MT has a shewa under the bet. This could either reflect the absence of the article ("in a beginning"), or the article in a shortened "construct" form ("in the beginning of").

I agree that "korban" is in the construct here. But "reshit" ("beginning") is in the absolute, not the construct. No, I don't think this is technically a construct, even though it would translate the same. Here the text has an explicit preposition "li" ("to, from, of"). This violates the construct form, but uses an explicit prepositional phrase to convey the same idea. Many of the Psalms have the same construction in their superscripts (e.g. "a Psalm of David"). I don't think this can be seen as a construct. Literally it says, "The one declaring, from the beginning, the end" or "The one declaring the end from the beginning." "End" is the direct object of the verbal action "declaring", not the absolute of a construct, which would mean "beginning of the end." I agree with you; the parsing guide in my Bible software was wrong here. No, this was another goof in my parsing guide. You are correct that Job 40:19 is a construct form. But I would read Job 8:7 as a construct also, with the prepositional suffix acting as the absolute: i.e. "in the beginning of you" or "in your beginning." Yes, Deut 33:21 is the correct reference. (Note that this is grammatically the same as Ps 105:36.)I think we should omit Job 8:7 but include Lev 2:12; Ps 105:36; and Is 46:10, for the reasons given above.But your point is well taken; this is only 5 occurrences out of 51. "Beginning" ("reshit") is more often used in construct than in absolute.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : typo

Yes; the site Hebrew4Christians has details and examples. As they show, the word "king" ("melek") already has short vowels ("seghols") in the absolute and can't be shortened further, so the construct form with vowels is completely identical to the absolute. But the first vowel in the MT isn't quite right for this. I have explained this earlier and Arach has supported it with a quote. I would again recommend the Word Biblical Commentary, which has an excellent extended discussion of the grammatical issues in Gen 1:1. Yes, but there was also an oral tradition which included the vowels. The reason the Masoretes added the written vowels is that Hebrew was starting to lose its oral tradition. Not necessarily. Often the correct reading can only be determined from context. It is true that a prefix is often added to infinitives. But this is simply because we often use infiinitives in the construction such as "to do x." The prefix it is technically not part of the infinitive. Infinitives can be used without the prefix. True. Again, it does not need a prefix to be an infinitive. Especially to be an infinitive construct, which means that the vowels are shortened and the word pronounced more quickly.This grammatical issue is very easy to illustrate and resolve. Just take a look at Gen 5:1. Here we see a noun with the prepositional prefix "bi" ("in"), followed by a form of the verb "bara," followed by "Elohim", just as in Gen 1:1. But here the voweling in the MT has "bara" as an infinitive construct ("bero"). And note that this infinitive construct has no prepositional prefix. The text transliterates as "beyom bero' 'Elohim," which literally means "in the day of the creating of God," or more smoothly, "in the day that God created." This is exactly the way that Rashi wants to read Gen 1:1. His reading of Gen 1:1 requires no change to the consonants, but it does require a change to the MT vowels.Again, just to be clear, I disagree with Rashi's reading for the reasons I've already given earlier (and which are outlined in more detail in Word Biblical Commentary). But Rashi's reading is still tenable if one changes the vowels of the MT.Edited by kbertsche, : clarification

No, it's NOT this simple and mechanical at all.Normal Hebrew word order is VERB-SUBJECT-OBJECT. Subject and object are usually nouns. Hence, two nouns are frequently side-by-side which are not in construct, but are subject-object. The text had no vowels, but the language had vowels. It can't be spoken without vowel sounds. The vowels were propagated through oral tradition. I would have translated it pretty much the same way that they did. I think it's the best fit, all things being considered. No, I disagree. I still disagree. No, if he would have added a preposition, as you suggest, he would have changed the sentence and messed up the construct chain. What we have in Gen 5:1 is a construct chain, with the infinitive construct in the middle of the chain (i.e. it is not the first construct in the chain; it follows a preceding noun in construct). Adding a preposition would break the chain and change the meaning.I just did a search for an infinitive construct (with or without a prepositional prefix) in the middle of a construct chain. Here are all that I find in Genesis. You can see that none have prepositional prefixes. Do you agree that any of these are infinitive constructs?Gen 2:4 "beyom 'asot YHWH" = "in the day of the making of God" = "when God made" (here "asah" changes form)
Gen 2:17 "beyom akhalekha" = "in the day of the eating of you" = "when you eat"
Gen 3:5 "beyom akhalekhem" = "in the day of the eating of you (pl)" = "when you (pl) eat"
Gen 5:1 (already discussed)
Gen 5:2 "beyom hibbare'am" = "in the day of the being created of them" = "when they were created" ("bara" here is in the "nifil" stem, denoting passive)
Gen 13:10 "lifenei shachet YHWH" = "to the face of the destroying of God" = "before God destroyed" (infin construct is in "piel", denoting intensive)
Gen 21:8 "beyom higgamel 'et-yitzchaq" = "in the day of the weaning of Isaac" = "when Isaac was weaned" ("bara" here is in the "nifil" stem, denoting passive)
Gen 29:7 "'et he'asef hamiqneh" = "the time of the gathering of the cattle" = "the time for the cattle to be gathered" (infin construct is in "nifil", denoting passive)
Gen 30:41 "bekhol-yachem hatzo'n" = "in all of the mating of the flock" = "whenever the flock was mating" (infin construct is in "piel", denoting intensive)
Gen 36:31 "lifenei melakh-melekh" = "to face of reigning of a king" = "before any king reigned"
Gen 38:27 "be'et lidta" = "in the time of the bearing of her" = "at the time that she bore"
Gen 40:20 "yom hulledet 'et-par'o" = "the day of the causing to be born of Pharaoh" = "Pharaoh's birthday" (infin construct is in "hofal", denoting passive-causative)Again, none of these occurrences put prepositional prefixes on infinitive constructs when they are in the middle of a construct chain. I couldn't find any examples which did so. Can you find any? But the Masoretes didn't invent the vowel sounds. they invented a way of writing the vowel sounds that had been carried along for centuries by oral tradition. Yes, some of the vowel sounds could have been corrupted over the centuries. But this doesn't mean that we should just ignore the MT vowels completely!