Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Genesis 1:1: independent clause or subordinate phrase?

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>, <sbfnet AT netvision.net.il>
  • Subject: Genesis 1:1: independent clause or subordinate phrase?
  • Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 21:29:09 -0500



Dear Prof. Niccacci,

Many thanks for your contribution to the debate about Genesis 1:1. I
was pleased to receive an analysis of this verse from someone who
understands the issues in depth, and whose understanding is not driven
by an attempt to prove a particular interpretation. My further
comments are indicated by "PK:" in the following copy of what you
wrote.

Peter Kirk

You wrote:

Dear list-members,
A discussion is going on concerning Gen 1 & 2. It goes without saying
that one should carefully distinguish grammar and syntax, on one side,
from interpretation, on the other. Interpretation should come after a
correct syntactical analysis has been found. Further, speculations
about the intention of the text should be sober.

PK: Indeed. For this reason, and because of my lack of competence in
this field, I have snipped your references to Jewish interpreters.

1) I may be allowed to suggest again what I think is the
correct analysis of Gen 1:1-3. *Bere'$it* is the first part of a
construct state, whose second part is the phrase *bara' 'elohŒm 'et
ha$$amayim we'et ha'arets*; literally, "In the beginning of
God-created-heaven-and-earth," i.e. "When God began creating heaven
and earth." The Biblical creation story begins with a temporal
sentence of the type found in the creation stories of the Ancient Near
East.

PK: Maybe, but I would prefer to demonstrate this from the Hebrew
rather than presupposing a parallel with other literature, especially
as Hebrew theology has some clear distinctive features including (at
least at a later period) creation ex nihilo.

This analysis was already presented in my _Syntax_# 18. In the
footnotes there I referred to GKC #130d, Joon #158d, and K”nig
#337v-z, where the phenomenon of a construct state having a finite
verb as the second member (nomen rectum) is illustrated. Pertinent
examples are as follows: Exod 4:13; 6:28; 1Sam 25:15; Psa 65:5; 81:6;
Jer 6:15 + 8:12. Syntactically, the construction *bere'$it bara'
'elohim [with qatal]* is equivalent to *beyom bero' 'elohim [with
infinitive]" (Gen 5:1).

PK: Thank you for pointing me to GKC, the one of these sources which I
have to hand. I was surprised to see the number of such references,
including the ones which you mention, which I have looked at. But I do
note that none of your references have the type of sentence structure
found in Genesis 1:1-2 in which such a time phrase comes before the
main clause and is separated from it by waw: B-<time word> <QATAL
verb> <rest of clause> W-<main clause>... The closest example is Exo.
6:28, but here there is a WAYHI before the B-; in all the other cases
the time phrase follows the main clause. Are there other instances of
time phrases beginning with B-<time word> which are separated from the
main clause to which they refer by waw? This structure would seem very
odd, as the waw is usually a clause divider but in such a case it
would not be, or else the time phrase would be left on its own with no
sentence to be linked to. Of course the same construction with a
preposed WAYHI is very common, but there is no verb other than BARA'
in Genesis 1:1.

PK: I note for example that Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Samuel, Nehemiah
(after the superscription) and Ezekiel all start with the structure
WAYHI B-<time phrase> W-<main clause> (sometimes there is more than
one time phrase). Ezra, Daniel, Haggai and Zechariah start with the
structure B-<time phrase> <rest of main clause>, where <rest of main
clause> starts with a QATAL verb, so giving an X-QATAL structure to
the whole sentence. Esther has WAYHI B-<time phrase> B-<time phrase>
B-<time phrase> QATAL, with a complex repeated structure but no waw
before the main clause. These are all of the Bible books apart from
Genesis which start with a temporal phrase. There are no other cases
of the structure B-<time phrase> W-<main clause>.

PK: To put this another way, the examples you quote are all consistent
with an analysis of Genesis 1:1 including a null complementiser (e.g.
perhaps a missing 'ASHER) as follows:

{time phrase {preposition B-}
{noun phrase {construct noun RE'SHIT}
{noun phrase {complementiser 0}
{sentence {verb BARA'}
{...}}}}}

where {...} is 'ELOHIM 'ET-HASHSHAMAYIM WE'ET HA'ARETS. On this
analysis, the whole verse is a time phrase, and so there should be no
waw separating it from the following clause. Also the embedded
sentence is QATAL first, not X-QATAL, for BERE'SHIT is not part of it.

PK: Your following analysis of this verse as an X-QATAL sentence seems
to go against your interpretation. The X-QATAL analysis demands a
sentence structure like:

{sentence {time phrase {preposition B-}
{noun phrase {noun RE'SHIT}}}
{verb BARA'}
{...}}

PK: Now I realise that two sentences connected only by W- may be
understood as in a temporal relationship of simultaneity, as in GKC
164a. This is possible, but is a different claim from the one you are
making that BERE'SHIT BARA'... is to be understood as a construct
chain. But in such cases simultaneity is generally indicated by a
participle or a word like `OD or HINNE (see GKC). There is no such
indication in Genesis 1:1.

<snip>

The complete text (Gen 1:1-3) reads as follows: "When God began
creating heaven and earth [sentence 1, x-qatal], the earth was chaos
and void [sentence 2, waw-x-qatal], darkness was on the surface of the
abyss [sentence 3, waw-nonverbal sentence], and the Spirit of God was
hovering over the surface of the water [sentence 4, waw-nonverbal
sentence with participle]. Then God said [sentence 5, wayyiqtol] etc."
Sentences 2-4 are coordinated; they are main with regard to sentence
1, which depends on them. As a syntactic unit, sentences 1-4 depend
on sentence 5, which contains narrative wayyiqtol. This wayyiqtol
begins the mainline of the narrative. What precedes gives the setting
of the story, i.e. it specifies how the situation was when God began
creating.

PK: Thank you for this analysis. I am happy with this apart from your
view of the role of sentence 1, as outlined above. I feel certain that
this would not have been the natural understanding of the Hebrew text
as presented. If the author had wanted to say what you suggest, he
could have avoided ambiguity in many different ways e.g. 1) by adding
WAYHI at the start, or 2) by using the infinitive construct rather
than the QATAL of BARA' and starting verse 2 with HAYTA HA'ARETS TOHU
WEBOHU. But he has left us with no clear indication that he intends
the rather rare construction which you have put forward. The first
verse clearly can be understood as a main clause (as in 1 Kings and
Job, which both start with an X-QATAL main clause, giving background
information), and so I do not believe that an intelligent author,
particularly of such a significant verse, would have left open a
possibility which he did not intend. On the other hand, I have not
found any Hebrew example with the sentence structure which you propose
for this verse, leaving open the possibility that the ambiguity was
resolved by your interpretation being rejected by native speaker
hearers and readers as ungrammatical.

PK: I now feel obliged to give an alternative understanding analogous
to the one which you presented and I rejected. I realise that this is
difficult, but I would prefer to see verses 1 and 2 as somehow in
parallel. Thus I would tentatively suggest: "In the beginning God
created heaven and earth [sentence 1, x-qatal], at that time the earth
was chaos and void [sentence 2, waw-x-qatal]...". But the precise
temporal relationship between verses 1 and 2 is, I admit, obscure. I
wonder if you can comment on whether in general pairs of X-QATAL
clauses joined by waw should be taken as simultaneous, sequential or
what?

PK: This leaves open the question of how the Jewish interpreters came
to give such a surprising interpretation. Were they perhaps motivated
by some other doctrinal viewpoint? It is possible, but unlikely, that
they were trying to avoid a creation ex nihilo interpretation. Perhaps
they spotted something which I pointed out to Ian, that my view
requires God to act before the first numbered day; this could have
offended the Jewish interpreters' sensibilities, and so they found an
alternative interpretation. Pure speculation, I know, from one who
knows little of this subject.

2) The question of creatio ex nihilo versus eternity of the
matter is beyond the intention of the text. As in the Ancient Near
East, creation is presented as a transformation of chaos into cosmos.
This does not mean, of course, that the biblical writer(s) believed
that God did not create the matter...

PK: I agree with the first sentence of your 2), but I don't think the
second has been demonstrated, at least as the full scope of the
understanding of the author of Genesis.

<snip>

3) Gen 2:4 can hardly be divided in two parts as the literary
critics usually maintain...

PK: This is very interesting, but I think this E-mail is long enough
already, so I will leave this for another time.

<snip>





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page