A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis

—
v.^ it Is necessary to leave the alternative open.
1.
1
—
13
In the
beginning^ If the clause be subordinate the reference of
ri''SJ>N"i is defined by what immediately follows, <strong>and</strong> no further
question arises. But if it be an independent statement
beginning is used absolutely (as in Jn. i^), <strong>and</strong> two inter-
pretations become possible : {a) that the verse asserts the
creation {ex nihilo) of the primaeval chaos described in v.^
or (b) that it summarises the whole creative process
narrated in the chapter. The former view has prevailed
in Jewish <strong>and</strong> Christian theolog-y, <strong>and</strong> is still supported
by the weighty authority of We. But (i) it is not in
accordance with the usage of n^EJ'XI (see below) ; (2) it is not
required by the word ' create,'—a created chaos is perhaps
a contradiction (Is. 45^^ nK"^n ^nh-Ni>), <strong>and</strong> We. himself
syntax. Three constructions have been proposed : (a) v.^ an independent
sentence {all Vns. <strong>and</strong> the great majority of comm., including-
Calv. De. Tu, We. Dri.). In sense this construction (taking the
verse as superscription) is entirely free from objection : it yields an
easy syntax, <strong>and</strong> a simple <strong>and</strong> majestic opening-. The absence of the
art. tells against it, but is by no means decisive. At most it is a
matter of pointing-, <strong>and</strong> the sporadic Greek transliterations Bap-rjcrrjO
(Field, Hexap.), <strong>and</strong> Bap^ed (Lagarde, Ankiind. 5), alongside of
Bpijaid, may show that in ancient times the first word was sometimes
read 'na. Even the Mass. pointing does not necessarily imply that the
word was meant as const. ; 'n is never found with art., <strong>and</strong> De. has
well pointed out that the stereotyped use or omission of art. with
certain words is governed by a subtle linguistic sense which eludes our
analysis {e.g. onigp, c'xn.p, njij'N-ta: cf. Kon. vS. § 294 g). The construction
seems to me, however, opposed to the essentially relative idea of 'n,
its express reference to that of which it is the beginning (see above).
[h) v.^ protasis: v.^ parenthesis: v.^ apodosis ;
—
— ;
When God began
to create . . . noin the earth was . . .
So Ra. Ew. Di.* Ho. Gu. al. — practically all who reject (a).
Although first appearing explicitly in Ra. (f 1 105), it has been argued
that this represents the old Jewish tradition, <strong>and</strong> that (a) came in under
—
God said, Let there he light.
* Who, however, considers the present text to be the result of a
redactional operation. Originally the place of v.^ was occupied by
2*a in its correct form : D'n'?N ON-13? pxm D'DB-n nn'?in rhv^. When this was
transposed it was necessary to frame a new introduction, <strong>and</strong> in the
h<strong>and</strong>s of the editor it assumed the form of v.^ (similarly, Sta. BTh.
i. 349). I am unable to adopt this widely accepted view of the original
position of 2^ (see on the verse), <strong>and</strong> Di.'s intricate hypothesis would
seem to me an additional argument against it.