Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Kevin L. Barney" <klbarney AT yahoo.com>]

I agree with Irene and Ian (I also agree with much of what Edgar had to 
say, although I do think that Gen 1:1-2 portrays the creation as being from 
formless matter).  Whether Genesis 1:1 is a main clause (which tends to 
favor a creatio ex nihilo reading) or a dependent clause (which does not 
tend to favor such a reading) is a subject of vigorous debate.  To my 
perception, the majority scholarly view these days is that Gen. 1:1 is a 
dependent clause, marked by a construct noun immediately followed by a verb 
(I have seen this referred to as an "asyndetic relative clause" if this 
means anything to the grammarians out there).  Some people deny that 
re'shit (I saw a number of the posts trying to set forth a unform 
transliteration methodology, but my impression is that ad hoc 
transliterations are still acceptable here) is necessarily a construct form 
here; others observe that this construction normally takes an infinitive 
construct rather than a finite verb, etc., etc.  There's a pretty extensive 
literature on this debate.  There's also a tendency (as is often the case) 
for theological concerns to play a significant role in how one reads the 
evidence.  I don't think creatio ex nihilo as a theological concept was a 
concern in the Genesis account.

Kevin L. Barney
Hoffman Estates, Illinois
klbarney AT yahoo.com