B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

1:1 בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית The syntax of Gen 1:1–3 has been a matter of dispute from time immemorial, giving rise to much theological debate (see Skinner, Genesis, 13–14). The apparatus entry for בראשית in BHK³ and BHS (with slight variations) is as follows: “Orig βρησιθ vel βαρησηθ (-σεθ); Samar bā̊rā̊šẹt.” This may give a misleading impression that there is reliable text-critical support for a vocalization with the definite article. In the case of Origen, the textual evidence is very slender indeed, as indicated in Wevers’ critical apparatus (Genesis, 75). The Samaritan bā̊rā̊šẹt is in fact unarticulated, since, according to Samaritan Hebrew grammar, in which ר is geminated as any other consonant, it would have had a doubled ר: bā̊rā̊šẹt (see Ben-Ḥayyim, Grammar, 90; see also Rüterswörden/Warmuth, “בראשית mit Artikel,” 175). Thus Smr does not provide firm testimony for the determinative state.

The medieval commentators held varying positions. Rashi understood the finite verb בָּרָא as analogous to the infinitive בְּרֹא and arrived at a temporal clause subordinated to v. 3, so that the sequence of the verses does not follow the order of the creation. Ibn Ezra agreed with Rashi but considered v. 2 as the principal clause. This view was recently reinforced with syntactic arguments by Holmstedt, “Restrictive Syntax,” 56–57. Qimḥi, on the other hand, claimed that the word is in the absolute state, with an adverbial sense. This is attested by all ancient versions, which attribute to בראשית the function of a temporal complement of the following ברא. Thus, they establish the independent status of v. 1, attributing to the word the meaning of “the beginning,” i.e., the first point in time. See Orlinsky, Notes, 49–52; Westermann, Genesis, 1:78; Jenni, “Erwägungen,” 121–27.

Jason Hare wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 10:02 pm The problem with Biblia Hebraica traditionally is that the notes are given in Latin. This was to make it accessible to everyone, given that not everyone is an English speaker. It has had the opposite effect for most people in America who study Hebrew, since Latin is generally inaccessible to us.

The new Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ) has two improvements over the older versions, especially in the electronic versions. I have all of the currently available volumes of BHQ on Logos, and I love them. So, the advantages are that they provide English translations of the Latin notes when you mouse over the term, and there now a textual commentary that comes with the text. That commentary might be the best that you'll find.

I just pulled up Genesis 1:1, and the following is a textual note from the BHQ. Note that this type of textual commentary is all over the BHQ.

1:1 בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית The syntax of Gen 1:1–3 has been a matter of dispute from time immemorial, giving rise to much theological debate (see Skinner, Genesis, 13–14). The apparatus entry for בראשית in BHK³ and BHS (with slight variations) is as follows: “Orig βρησιθ vel βαρησηθ (-σεθ); Samar bā̊rā̊šẹt.” This may give a misleading impression that there is reliable text-critical support for a vocalization with the definite article. In the case of Origen, the textual evidence is very slender indeed, as indicated in Wevers’ critical apparatus (Genesis, 75). The Samaritan bā̊rā̊šẹt is in fact unarticulated, since, according to Samaritan Hebrew grammar, in which ר is geminated as any other consonant, it would have had a doubled ר: bā̊rā̊šẹt (see Ben-Ḥayyim, Grammar, 90; see also Rüterswörden/Warmuth, “בראשית mit Artikel,” 175). Thus Smr does not provide firm testimony for the determinative state.

The medieval commentators held varying positions. Rashi understood the finite verb בָּרָא as analogous to the infinitive בְּרֹא and arrived at a temporal clause subordinated to v. 3, so that the sequence of the verses does not follow the order of the creation. Ibn Ezra agreed with Rashi but considered v. 2 as the principal clause. This view was recently reinforced with syntactic arguments by Holmstedt, “Restrictive Syntax,” 56–57. Qimḥi, on the other hand, claimed that the word is in the absolute state, with an adverbial sense. This is attested by all ancient versions, which attribute to בראשית the function of a temporal complement of the following ברא. Thus, they establish the independent status of v. 1, attributing to the word the meaning of “the beginning,” i.e., the first point in time. See Orlinsky, Notes, 49–52; Westermann, Genesis, 1:78; Jenni, “Erwägungen,” 121–27.

Kirk Lowery wrote: ↑Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:06 pm Jason and Kenneth,

My memory says that there are no specifically text-critical commentaries for the HB. There are commentaries that are known for including a lot of TC, e.g., the Hermenaia series. But I'm not a text critic, nor the son of one. There are Facebook Text Criticism groups, although a question at NLM would be a good place to start for recommendations.

Kirk

Jason Hare wrote: ↑Mon Jan 18, 2021 4:52 am Folks on NLM are telling me that Baylor's handbooks are a good guide in this area.