ברא as ברוא in Genesis 1:1

[ducky]

Jason, the MT didn't leave it ambiguous. sinse they voweled it in one specific way which would give the whole chapter a different sense.

the difference between the two options you wrote is essential of how one would understand the first part of the chapter.
If it is read with a definite article, then the first part is considered to connect with the rest (as part of the chronological events)

But the MT didn't put the article definite intentionally since this first part is actually a "title", and the chronology starts after that.

[Jason Hare]

Jason, the MT didn't leave it ambiguous. sinse they voweled it in one specific way which would give the whole chapter a different sense.

I'm not sure what different sense you're talking about. Maybe you can elaborate or give this some substance.

Without the article, we would expect a construct relationship. There is no construct relationship here, but with the infinitive construct, we would have what we expected (בְּרֵאשִׁית בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים in the beginning of God's creating...). This turns the whole of the first verse into a temporal marker, telling us (together with verse 2) what state the world was in when God initiated the creation with the words יְהִי אוֹר. That is, when God began to create the world, everything was a chaotic, desolate mess. God began to make order of it with his first creative words: "Let there be light." From that point on, the chaos took shape, with separation yielding order (light from darkness; sky from earth; land from sea; plants and animals from land; etc.).

But the MT didn't put the article definite intentionally since this first part is actually a "title", and the chronology starts after that.

A title? Like a תֹּֽלְדוֹת label? If it were a label, don't you think it would exist without a preposition or a verb? Perhaps רֵאשִׁית בְּרִיאַת הַשָּׁמַ֫יִם וְהָאָ֫רֶץ or something similar. It wouldn't be written according to clausal rules.

I read this verse as if it were בִּבְרֹא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַ֫יִם וְאֵת הָאָ֫רֶץ. The addition of רֵאשִׁית simply places us at the beginning of the creative act... before the initial creative order was given.

[ducky]

Hello Jason,

I wrote this post in this thread
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=22241#p28001

This should answer your two questions
1. About the Construct state of noun+verb (which is a common Biblical way. Sometimes you read and don't even notice that you see it - but I gave clear examples for that).
2. About the different reading of the first part as introduction vs. an action in the list of actions.

I think it would cover it.
And if you still see my words not understood, then I'll explain them again.

[Jason Hare]

Hello Jason,

I wrote this post in this thread
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=22241#p28001

This should answer your two questions
1. About the Construct state of noun+verb (which is a common Biblical way. Sometimes you read and don't even notice that you see it - but I gave clear examples for that).
2. About the different reading of the first part as introduction vs. an action in the list of actions.

I think it would cover it.
And if you still see my words not understood, then I'll explain them again.

I see what you're talking about now. I had never considered that you could have a smichut with a finite verb. Rashi pointed out the opening of Hosea as an example:

Hosea 1:2
תְּחִלַּ֥ת דִּבֶּר־יְהוָ֖ה בְּהוֹשֵׁ֑עַ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהוָ֜ה אֶל־הוֹשֵׁ֗עַ לֵ֣ךְ קַח־לְךָ֞ אֵ֤שֶׁת זְנוּנִים֙ וְיַלְדֵ֣י זְנוּנִ֔ים כִּֽי־זָנֹ֤ה תִזְנֶה֙ הָאָ֔רֶץ מֵאַֽחֲרֵ֖י יְהוָֽה׃

By analogy, I guess it's perfectly fine to read בָּרָא as a finite verb in smichut. It would still be read in the same way that I was proposing, and Rashi was saying that it would be read with the same meaning. In other words, it doesn't confirm creatio ex nihilo and the first verse is indeed a temporal expression connected to the beginning of the creation act.

[ducky]

In other words, it doesn't confirm creatio ex nihilo and the first verse is indeed a temporal expression connected to the beginning of the creation act.

Can you explain that part?

[Jason Hare]

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

<snip>

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.

His argument (see attachment) is that רֵאשִׁית is part of a construct chain and that it should be read just as תְּחִלַּת is read in Hosea 1:2 (which is also a noun in the construct state with a finite verb). His reasoning is based on the other appearances of רֵאשִׁית and the syntactic similarity to Hosea 1:2. Here is his argument and the relevant comments:

rashi-genesis.jpg

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

I don't find anything that William Lane Craig says persuasive.

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's bad English and doesn't reflect the Hebrew. Why use incoherent expression to translate what can be rendered clearly? "In the beginning of when..." That makes no sense at all. The word "when" doesn't have a part in the translation except when regarding the construct relationship created in the word reshit.

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

Just as Hosea 1:2 means "when Yahweh began to speak by Hosea, Yahweh said etc.," so this verse clearly refers to the beginning of the creative action, not the beginning of the universe itself per se.

[Jason Hare]

In other words, it doesn't confirm creatio ex nihilo and the first verse is indeed a temporal expression connected to the beginning of the creation act.

Can you explain that part?

Most English translations render verse 1 on its own as a simple statement.

> In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. [That is, God created the universe out of nothing and then began fashioning it in the next verse.]

Reading it as I am arguing, the first verse should be taken with the second verse to tell us what state the world was in when God came to begin the creation.

> When God began creating the heavens and the earth, the earth was tohu va-vohu... [That is, God came to a fashionless chaos, out of which he began fashioning the universe.]

The first verse doesn't stand on its own, but it should be taken with what follows. That's all I'm saying. It's not an old argument, and it's reflected in the new JPS translation (and in Alter's translation), but it's been fun kicking the ideas around. I think I've come to a place where I feel comfortable — because of your mention of [construct noun] + [finite verb] constructions (as in Hosea 1:2), which was something that I had not noticed before.

[ducky]

Okay, I can add some stuff and maybe define what you say (according to my reading).
But as for now, as long as we understand what Rashi meant+the "special" construct state" - it's fine with me.

[Schubert]

A construct noun + finite verb construction was new to me (not that that's significant ). But with a bit of hunting, I discovered that Gesenius discusses it at para. 130g and includes a reference to Hosea 1:2 (although no reference to Gen 1:1).
In addition, the reference grammar (2nd ed.) by van der Merwe et al. appears to contemplate this syntactical construction (p. 224, para. 25.3.1(c)).

[ducky]

Hello John,

The syntactical construction is not something to contemplate about since it is a known thing and it appears many times in the bible. and no one doubts it.

I think that the scholar contemplates about this construction in the specific verse of Gen. 1:1.
But not contemplates about it in general.

Not everyone except this verse using this kind of construction, and that is why Gesenius ignores it.

But I think that any grammar book should write it anyway with a note about this verse to say it is doubtful in the eyes of scholars.

My personal view is that there is no doubt in my mind that this is the intention of the MT when they voweled it like that.