Construct form in Genesis 1:1

[normansimonr]

Hi. Maybe this is too common a question, but I'll ask it anyway. When reading Genesis 1:1 I find this:

בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

Questions:

*Is בְּרֵאשִׁית a construct form?
*If the previous answer is yes, then is בָּרָא a Qal Perfect?
*If בְּרֵאשִׁית is a construct, how could this verse be translated?

Maybe we can translate 'In the beginning of God creating the heavens and the earth,' but in that case I'm not sure that Bara can be translated like that. The KJV translates In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

What do you think?

[Galena]

Norman, Hallo, there are a few different translations of this on the web, none are without sound reasoning and I am sure you have read them. There is also nothing wrong with "..in the beginning..." despite there being no definite article to רֵאשִׁית. Grammatically it is a feminine noun construct in the singular according to Davidson's Lexicon. And בָּרָא without the vowel pointing could be any number of things, pointed here it is qal perfect or a noun from the chaldean meaning 'son' according to Davidson's lexicon again.

As to translating the sentence:

1. There is no definite article, however this simply means that there is nuance laying elsewhere in this particular case; If there was the definite article this 'could' imply an erroneous suggestion of Absolute Beginning, ie the beginning of God himself or eternal matter. Allowing for no interuption before the word "in" and the following word "begin" establishes the nuance of ...in beginning something from something that already existed, ie, it came from God who already existed as opposed to just appearing out of absolute nothingness God included (ie ex nihilo); that this beginning is referring to temporary, physical things that are going to be created by God not out of nothing, but from within Him Himself.

2. A construct is by definition a genitive and therefore must be "Owning" something, and it can not own the following verb which is clearly a completed action by the Lord God. The implied thing that it is owning would appear to be the story that is to be told, ie, in beginning with this continuation from what already exists, that is God. In beginning with this story about God, around whom all revolves, He created.....: The important thing I notice is that this construct stands alone all by itself, it is not joined to any clause that follows. But to prevent hebrew readers from seeing an absolute beginning out of complete nothingness no definite article was included. This does not nullify the English translation 'In the beginning...' simply because we don't read it that way anyway. Hebrew sometimes has ways of emphasizing concepts that necessitate a break from our ideas of grammatical correctness.

My translation would simply remain "In the beginning, God created..."

[kwrandolph]

Norman, …There is also nothing wrong with "..in the beginning..." despite there being no definite article to רֵאשִׁית.

How do you know that there was no definite article? The Masoretic pointing is demonstrably wrong in enough places that we can question their pointing here too.

As for translation, English syntax demands that it has a definite article, so from a translator’s viewpoint, the question is moot.

… And בָּרָא without the vowel pointing could be any number of things, pointed here it is qal perfect or a noun from the chaldean meaning 'son' according to Davidson's lexicon again.

As much as I liked Davidson’s when I was learning Hebrew, and used my copy so heavily that it fell apart, even as I was using it I noticed that it has its faults.

1) its reliance on the Masoretic points which sometimes leads it astray

2) the grammatical forms listed according to medieval tradition. In particular, remember that “perfect” means Qatal, and “future” means Yiqtol.

3) its listing of all words according to a three letter root. If the root didn’t exist, it made one up, or rather accepted the made up root that tradition provided. At times tradition placed words with roots that made no sense.

4) the definitions provided are medieval. While the medieval definitions for common words are mostly the same as Biblical, the same is not true of some of the uncommon words.

Now I recommend that someone who is just learning Hebrew, that he use Davidson’s to prevent frustration of not recognizing forms, but that he also recognize its faults and work around them.

As far as this verse, ברא is a Qal Qatal 3rd person singular verb.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Galena]

Norman, …There is also nothing wrong with "..in the beginning..." despite there being no definite article to רֵאשִׁית.

How do you know that there was no definite article? The Masoretic pointing is demonstrably wrong in enough places that we can question their pointing here too.

Karl W. Randolph.

Dear Karl, did you miss my response a few days ago to the Hosea 6:7 thread? Since you keep remarking about the masoretes I think it is time to understand your points in more detail.

Now to answer your question above is simple: I do believe that the Ben Asher family of scholars got it right! Why? Because it is so obvious to everyone that there would be no argument if it was pointed with a patach. The fact it is pointed thus is not and can not be an error. It is too obvious a mistake, it is the very absolute first word, nay, the very first Vowel even, in the whole of the Torah prophets and Ketuvim so no excuses there for tiredness during thorough editing, the masoretes were as strict then as the rabbis who make the parchments on Goats skins for the mezuzah are today. Even the scrolls in the synagogue are rigorously checked that makes a spell checker on a word processing platform blush with disgrace!

The masoretes were a strict faithful family of scholars that sought diligently to maintain the word of God with more fear and respect than can be said for todays modern translations who hold the words of disgraceful Westcott and Hort of higher esteem than those of the reformers, as if to say God hid the true word for 1800 years and only in 1850 did God reveal the mistakes!

So please explain all your reasons for your questioning of the Masoretes.

Kindest Regards
Chris

[Isaac Fried]

It seems to me that ברא is a variant פרע, 'separated', both relating to בָּרוּר, 'clear, distinct'.
There is no nothingness = no-thing-ness, before there is a somethingness = some-thing-ness, or at least a thingness = thing-ness, that by its absence brings the onset of nothingness.

Isaac Fried, Boston University

[kwrandolph]

Norman, …There is also nothing wrong with "..in the beginning..." despite there being no definite article to רֵאשִׁית.

How do you know that there was no definite article? The Masoretic pointing is demonstrably wrong in enough places that we can question their pointing here too.

Karl W. Randolph.

Dear Karl, did you miss my response a few days ago to the Hosea 6:7 thread? Since you keep remarking about the masoretes I think it is time to understand your points in more detail.

You made the claim that the Masoretes preserved a pronunciation from 1300 years earlier. I disagreed with that. But I didn’t go into details, as I have covered them already in earlier posts.

Now to answer your question above is simple: I do believe that the Ben Asher family of scholars got it right! Why? Because it is so obvious to everyone that there would be no argument if it was pointed with a patach. The fact it is pointed thus is not and can not be an error. It is too obvious a mistake, it is the very absolute first word, nay, the very first Vowel even, in the whole of the Torah prophets and Ketuvim so no excuses there for tiredness during thorough editing, the masoretes were as strict then as the rabbis who make the parchments on Goats skins for the mezuzah are today. Even the scrolls in the synagogue are rigorously checked that makes a spell checker on a word processing platform blush with disgrace!

Yet there are rabbis, even orthodox ones, who will disagree with the Masoretic pointing at times. I read about that decades ago and no longer have the reference to show you. That was one of the things that made me to start questioning the Masoretic pointings.

I stopped using the Masoretic points years before I was able to get an electronic text on a computer, and I’ve had unpointed electronic texts for over a decade. There are a few texts to which I can point as incorrectly pointed, but most of the time, I read without knowing what are the Masoretic points.

The masoretes were a strict faithful family of scholars that sought diligently to maintain the word of God with more fear and respect

Their tradition was not only Biblical, but also influenced by the dialect of Hebrew that they spoke non-natively. It was influenced by theological traditions that they had. Both of those influenced the understanding of the words and which pointings that they applied to the text.

than can be said for todays modern translations who hold the words of disgraceful Westcott and Hort of higher esteem than those of the reformers, as if to say God hid the true word for 1800 years and only in 1850 did God reveal the mistakes!

Don̦’t confuse the issue. The Erasmus text that the Reformers used was inferior even in its own day, but the Reformers used it because it was the only one widely available, where a slightly inferior text was better than none. I personally recommend the Majority Text from modern scholars because there are linguistic clues within the text that make it appear to have preserved older texts than did the Westcott and Hort version.

So please explain all your reasons for your questioning of the Masoretes.

There are clues in post-Babalonian captivity Biblical books that indicate that the Jews who returned to Judea under Cyrus and later spoke not Hebrew, but Aramaic in the home and in the markets. Within a couple of generations, if not earlier, their pronunciation of Hebrew while reading the Biblical texts would be according to Aramaic rules, not Hebrew. By the time of the Masoretes a millennium later, the probability that accurate Biblical era Hebrew pronunciations were even remembered would be nil.

Secondly, I have found cases where even by meaning, the Masoretes had applied the wrong dots. But I was not in the market to bash the Masoretes, rather just to read the text, therefore I didn’t keep a record of which dots were incorrect. Now, as I wrote above, I read using an unpointed text, therefore don’t even see the Masoretic points.

Kindest Regards
Chris

Yours, Karl W. Randolph.

[normansimonr]

After looking up bereshit in the BDB, I found that reshit is a feminine noun that means 'beginning.' It is used by Jeremiah (see Jer 26:1) in a construct form in 'the beginning of the reign,' but it also appears by its own in Deut 33:21 apparently with the meaning of 'first fruits.' The vast majority of cases seems like a construct form, indeed: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7225.htm

So maybe reshit in Genesis 1:1 is an absolute, uncommon but valid?

Moreover, verse 2 begins with a vav, so if reshit here is a construct form it doesn't really match the syntax of the whole paragraph.

[Jemoh66]

You have to take in both syntax (sentence level grammar) and text linguistics (text level grammar). The overall structure of the book of Genesis is a very tight and consistent structure. It consists of 11 sections, ten of which begin with the expression אֵלֶּה תוֹלְדוֹת. There are striking similarities or common features to all these sections. With this in focus, the creation account (Gen 1:1-2:3) acts as a preamble to the whole book. Within this idea of a macrostructure it seems more probable that Gen 1:1 is one of two things:

1. It's the title, or
2. It's a summary statement.

I prefer 2. because v2 begins with a conjunction.

Furthermore, the conjunction is attached to a noun. Fronting a sentence with a waw conjunctive + noun is a well documented text level device to begin a new paragraph. Gen 1:2-2:3 develops in detail how God "created the heavens and the earth." Each one of the three phrases in v2 begin with a waw conj + noun. This is because nothing has happened yet on the mainline of the narrative. The author is describing the state of the earth. Finally, in v3 God speaks. Notice the phrase begins with a wayyiqtol verb (ויאמר). This is the first act of the narrative.

Jonathan Mohler

[kwrandolph]

After looking up bereshit in the BDB, I found that reshit is a feminine noun that means 'beginning.' It is used by Jeremiah (see Jer 26:1) in a construct form in 'the beginning of the reign,' but it also appears by its own in Deut 33:21 apparently with the meaning of 'first fruits.' The vast majority of cases seems like a construct form, indeed: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7225.htm

So maybe reshit in Genesis 1:1 is an absolute, uncommon but valid?

Not just maybe, but absolutely. If followed by a verb, especially one in Qatal or Yiqtol, it cannot be in construct. The verb is in Qatal.

Moreover, verse 2 begins with a vav, so if reshit here is a construct form it doesn't really match the syntax of the whole paragraph.

The waw at the beginning of verse 2 refers back to the verb ברא and not to the noun ראשית.

Karl W. Randolph.

[normansimonr]

Alright, I get it. So it's an absolute, and the KJV is accurate. Thanks.