ברא as ברוא in Genesis 1:1

[Jason Hare]

I know that the question has been asked before, but this is a new forum section.

What are your opinions on reading ברא as בְּרֹא in Genesis 1:1?

בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בְּרֹ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ׃ וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָֽיְתָ֥ה תֹ֨הוּ֙ וָבֹ֔הוּ וְחֹ֖שֶׁךְ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י תְה֑וֹם וְר֣וּחַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים מְרַחֶ֖פֶת עַל־פְּנֵ֥י הַמָּֽיִם׃ וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֖ים יְהִ֣י א֑וֹר וַֽיְהִי־אֽוֹר׃

Pro? Con? What's your reasoning?

[Kirk Lowery]

It might be good to review the motivation for the question. So...

Why is this a question? Is there manuscript evidence for the participle? Why isn't the perfect form acceptable?

[kwrandolph]

From the historical evidence, the pronunciation of Hebrew within a couple of generations after the Babylonian Exile was Aramaic pronunciation on Hebrew letters, the old Hebrew pronunciation having been lost, therefore we don’t know what was the original Hebrew pronunciation. So if you think this was the original pronunciation, what are your reasons?

As for the grammatical and syntactical construction of the sentence, the word is recognized as a Qatal Qal third person singular verb.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

I'm mostly asking just to get this subforum off the ground. Then again, I can see the several threads and you move to the subforum since it was opened.

It is most natural to read רֵאשִׁית in a construct relationship to what follows, and there's nothing against reading out this way, as far as I can tell.

It was suggested by Rashi.

I'm not talking about pronunciation. I'm talking about syntactic relationships between the parts of the verses.

[kwrandolph]

I'm mostly asking just to get this subforum off the ground. Then again, I can see the several threads and you move to the subforum since it was opened.

Several of my postings have been moved, but my response above is the first posting I made since the reorganization of this forum. This posting here is the second.

It is most natural to read רֵאשִׁית in a construct relationship to what follows, and there's nothing against reading out this way, as far as I can tell.

Not necessarily. There are places in Tanakh where רֵאשִׁית isn’t in the construct. Examples include Psalm 105:36, Ecclesiastes 7:8, Nehemiah 12:44.

I'm not talking about pronunciation. I'm talking about syntactic relationships between the parts of the verses.

This raises more questions: to which root do you refer? How is the word being used? Where is the verb in the sentence to account for the accusative markers in the sentence? What meaning do you intend to draw out of the sentence?

The easiest way to read the sentence is that רֵאשִׁית stands alone, not in construct, and ברא is the verb of the sentence as Qatal Qal third person singular.

Karl W. Randolph.

[ducky]

Hello, Jason

Rashi didn't voweled it different and read it as בְּרֹא, but he explained how the sentence supposed to be understood.
The "problem" that he saw is the one you mentioned: בראשית is not definite, and so it seems that this word acts as the first part of a construct state with no noun next to it.
One of the grammatical explanation for this and the common one is that this construct state is not a combination of two nouns as the common construct states, but it is a construct state that is based on a combination of a Noun+Verb.
And this is also a form of construct state in Hebrew.
Such as קרית חנה דוד
קרית = noun in the form of a construct state.
חנה = verb.
Or כל ימי התהלכנו is another example.
ימי = noun in the form of a construct state.
And Rashi used the example of תחלת דבר ה בהושע
תחלת = a construct state form.
דבר = verb.
And so, this is the same case of Gen. 1:1.

The difference between the בְראשית (with Sheva) and בָראשית (with Qamats) is essential to the understanding of this part.
If it is read with Qamats, as "In the beginning", then this part would be considered as a chronological act of the creation. As the first act.
But if it is read with a Sheva, it would be a construct state, and this part would be considered as a "title" or an introduction for the creation itself which its details are seen later.
and so, this reading would be something like: "At the beginning of the world creation there were this and that..." (since "heaven and earth" is a phrase that refers to the whole world), but the acts of the creations itself start later.

[ralph]

I'm mostly asking just to get this subforum off the ground. Then again, I can see the several threads and you move to the subforum since it was opened.

It is most natural to read רֵאשִׁית in a construct relationship to what follows, and there's nothing against reading out this way, as far as I can tell.

It was suggested by Rashi.

I'm not talking about pronunciation. I'm talking about syntactic relationships between the parts of the verses.

Well if you want to refer to Rashi it's probably worth giving a reference (and click 'show')

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cd ... pter-1.htm

William Lane Craig has some comment on that rashi here https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... -creation/

Rashi's argument is not purely grammatical. He mentoins grammar and theology. And i'm not sure if Rashi thinks his argument can stand on grammar alone.

If you did want to take Beraishit in construct then I think you can still leave the rest of the verse as is, by saying "In the beginning of When God created the heaven and the earth"

That still doesn't state the beginning of what. Of creation.. or of the account.

There are some orthodox jewish translations based on Rashi that say things like "In the beginning of God's creating" but it overlooks that bara is in the perfect form! Rashi may well read it as 'creating'.

There is some interpretation here in that Rashi may think that if it says "In the beginning" then it means the complete beginning nothing exists before then and so any mention of something it hasn't yet mentioned God creating, e.g. water (God's spirit 'hovering' over the water).. becomes problematic for him.. He could suggest that the water was created straight after the heaven and the earth, but anyhow. He uses the fact that water was there as an argument to say see the story isn't starting at the very beginning. So that's an argument to say "In the beginning of" And he thinks if it's construct like that then it allows for that not being the complete beginning. And so since the story isn't starting in the beginning, it is then not problematic for it to mention the water that God's spirit hover over.

The thing is, even if you read it as absolute, you could still say it's saying "in the beginning" (of the story / or of the account).

Ralph Zak

[ralph]

Not necessarily. There are places in Tanakh where רֵאשִׁית isn’t in the construct. Examples include Psalm 105:36, Ecclesiastes 7:8, Nehemiah 12:44.

I notice that Psalms 105:36 is often translated as first-fruit or first rather than beginning, and translations tend to say first of. Even though the groves wheeler morphological index has it as absolute there. There is 'of' there though..

Ecclesiastes 7:8 That's Beginning, so that's a match there, but it has a suffix on it and such things are technically construct. e.g. his horse = horse of him.

Nehemia 12:44 seems to be first-fruits.. Not beginning, so perhaps not a good match?

Ralph Zak

[ducky]

Hello Ralph,

Can you read my comment in this thread?
Rashi didn't mean to change the vowels - but only explained how it should be understood.
And also, the word ראשית in this form acts as the first part of a construct state since it is not defined (prefix with Sheva).

[Jason Hare]

It would seem that the Masoretes wanted to leave the verse ambiguous by leaving the article off [בְּרֵאשִׁית instead of בָּרֵאשִׁית] and by pointing the verb as qal perf 3ms [בָּרָא instead of בְּרֹא]. It's as if it would have been expected to be either
בָּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים
or
בְּרֵאשִׁית בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים
but the Masoretes left the one pointing from each possible permutation, thus creating ambiguity.