03-20-2019, 07:19 AM
I tend to go with Rashi's comment that it should be pointed בְּרֹא, which is an infinite construct. I'd read the passage (if I were not forced to do otherwise) as:
What I mean by "if I were not forced to" is that the text is traditionally pointed as בָּרָא, which means that I am compelled to read it this way for public readings and for discussion in regular settings.
The difference here is that the first verse of the three loses its independence. An infinitive absolute is necessarily dependent on another verb to complete its sense, since the infinitive absolute generally provides a temporal standpoint from to frame the main verb.
In this case, I would translate it as:
of:
Both of these would be temporal introductions to what follows. I would take verse 2, which has what we call a qāṭal verb form (as opposed to a wayyiqṭol). Such forms are normally used to provide background information and should not be taken as part of the story line. The story is carried forward with wayyiqṭol forms, which we have starting in verse 3.
We could take verse 1 as giving a temporal setting for verse 2, thus:
However, it seems to me that both verse 1 and verse 2 provide background information for verse 3, which is the real beginning of the story. If that's the case, then I would take verse 2 as parenthetical, having the temporal phrase dependent most directly on the first main verb וַיֹּ֫אמֶר in verse 3.
That being the case, I would render the complete three verses as:
Notice that I render רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים as "a powerful wind," taking ʾɛ̆lōhîm as a description and not as the base noun "God." The term doesn't have to refer to God at all.
Also, the word תְּהוֹם would be, in my opinion, naturally definite. It referred only to one thing, and it was related directly to the word tamtu in Akkadian and to the name of a deity in Sumerian theology Ti(h)amat. There may be relations to the Sumerian myth (Enuma Elish) that speaks of the creation of the world, in which Ti(h)amat plays an important role. In that sense, it may have been included in the Hebrew myth as a way of saying that God (Elohim) had ultimate power over Tiamat (the Abyss) and the other chaotic gods of the well-known Mesopotamian mythology.
בְּרֵאשִׁית בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַ֫יִם וְאֵת הָאָ֫רֶץ...
What I mean by "if I were not forced to" is that the text is traditionally pointed as בָּרָא, which means that I am compelled to read it this way for public readings and for discussion in regular settings.
The difference here is that the first verse of the three loses its independence. An infinitive absolute is necessarily dependent on another verb to complete its sense, since the infinitive absolute generally provides a temporal standpoint from to frame the main verb.
In this case, I would translate it as:
In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth...
of:
When God began to create the heavens and the earth...
Both of these would be temporal introductions to what follows. I would take verse 2, which has what we call a qāṭal verb form (as opposed to a wayyiqṭol). Such forms are normally used to provide background information and should not be taken as part of the story line. The story is carried forward with wayyiqṭol forms, which we have starting in verse 3.
We could take verse 1 as giving a temporal setting for verse 2, thus:
When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void [giving a gloss for tohu va-vohu] et cetera...
However, it seems to me that both verse 1 and verse 2 provide background information for verse 3, which is the real beginning of the story. If that's the case, then I would take verse 2 as parenthetical, having the temporal phrase dependent most directly on the first main verb וַיֹּ֫אמֶר in verse 3.
That being the case, I would render the complete three verses as:
When God began to create the heavens and the earth—and the earth was tohu and bohu [without getting into the direct meaning of that], and darkness [was] on the surface of the abyss, and a powerful wind [was] hovering on the surface of the waters—God said, "Let there be light." And there was light.
Notice that I render רוּחַ אֱלֹהִים as "a powerful wind," taking ʾɛ̆lōhîm as a description and not as the base noun "God." The term doesn't have to refer to God at all.
Also, the word תְּהוֹם would be, in my opinion, naturally definite. It referred only to one thing, and it was related directly to the word tamtu in Akkadian and to the name of a deity in Sumerian theology Ti(h)amat. There may be relations to the Sumerian myth (Enuma Elish) that speaks of the creation of the world, in which Ti(h)amat plays an important role. In that sense, it may have been included in the Hebrew myth as a way of saying that God (Elohim) had ultimate power over Tiamat (the Abyss) and the other chaotic gods of the well-known Mesopotamian mythology.