-
Genesis 1
- Baylor University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
41 Genesis 1:1-5 1 Initially deity created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was an emptiness and a void. And darkness is on the surface of deep-water, and a wind of deity hovers on the surface of the waters. 3 And deity said, “Let light be.” And light was. 4 And deity saw the light that good it is. And deity made separation between the light and between the darkness. 5 And deity named the light day, and the darkness he named night. And evening was. And morning was. Day one! ץ׃ ֶ ר ֽ ָ א ָ ה ת ֥ ֵ א ְו יִם֖ ַ מ ָ ּׁש ַ ה ת ֥ ֵ א ים ֑ ִ ֹלה ֱ א א ֣ ָ ר ָ ּב ית ִ֖ אׁש ֵ ר ְ ּב /// ץ ֶ ר ָ א ָ ה ת ֵ אְו יִם ַ מ ָ ּׁש ַ ה ת ֵ א ים ִ ֹלה ֱ א א ָ ר ָ ּב ית ִ אׁש ֵ ר ְ ּב. (a) Textuality > appositive expansion / Mood > declarative: past / Transitivity > material: action. ץ ֶ ר ָ א ָ ה ת ֵ אְו יִם ַ מ ָ ּׁש ַ ה ת ֵ א ים ִ ֹלה ֱ א א ָ ר ָ ּב ית ִ אׁש ֵ ר ְ ּב Constituents the heavens deity he created in a first Translation and the earth Theme Textuality Subject Finite Mood Goal Actor Process Circumstance Transivity The basic Transitivity structure of this clause is for the most part straightforward: the clause is about a deity creating the heavens and the earth. The Mood of the clause is also straightforward: it is declarative, 1:1 A HANDBOOK ON THE HEBREW TEXT OF GENESIS which is to say, it is making a statement, in this case, a statement about the past. It is appositive, meaning that it does not have a conjunction; naturally, since nothing precedes it. It is an expansion, which means it adds to the story; again, naturally, since we had nothing to begin with. The clause is tagged with three slashes (///) because it begins a new clause complex. See the Introduction for further explanation of these terms and symbols. What is not clear is the relationship of this clause to the following one: is it in a dependent (hypotactic) relationship or is it in an independent (paratactic) relationship? The linguistic interpretation offered in the analysis above indicates it is independent. In this analysis the clause makes a statement that stands on its own, perhaps as the Theme statement of the narrative description that follows it. But there are other viable analyses, and this issue has been much discussed in the history of the interpretation of this text. Another interpretive option sees the Textuality of this clause as hypotactic expansion rather than as paratactic expansion, rendering it as a temporal circumstantial clause. Interpretations along this line differ on which clause is the dominant clause upon which it depends and the meaning of which it expands: it could be 1:2(a), or 1:2(a-c), or 1:3(a). All three options have found advocates in the history of interpretation . See Wenham. Part of the difficulty is that this clause is the very first clause of the text, and ית ִ אׁש ֵ ר ְ ּב is the very first word. As such, the ית ִ אׁש ֵ ר ְ ּב prepositional phrase is the Theme of the first clause, and this clause is, linguistically speaking, the Theme of the text. The Theme of a clause typically serves to establish a connection to the context, either the context of speech or the context of situation. In this case, uniquely, there is no obvious context with which to connect, hence no obvious connection to be made. The NRSV reflects the variety of linguistic interpretations that are available and offers three options: (1) in the main text, In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth; and in footnotes (2) When God began to create... and (3) In the beginning God created ... . 42 Genesis 1:1 [44.206.227.65] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 01:19 GMT) ית ִ אׁש ֵ ר ְ ּב. Theme: textual / Circumstance: location, time > prep phrase: prep + noun common ms. Literally, in a first, perhaps meaning at commencement, or initially. Many translations render the noun ית ִ אׁש ֵ ר as the beginning and the prep phrase as in the beginning, but the noun is indefinite. The translation when, reflected in the NRSV and other versions, comes from analyzing ְ ּב in a temporal circumstantial sense, which then renders the clause a hypotactic temporal one. Understood this way, the precise meaning of this phrase and its effect on the syntax of the first three verses was famously disputed in the twelfth century when Ibn Ezra viewed verse 1 as a temporal clause subordinate to verse 2 as the main clause, and Rashi viewed verse 1 as a temporal clause subordinate to verse 3 as the main clause. א ָ ר ָ ּב. Finite > qatal 3ms / Process > qal ּברא. The syntactic relationship of ית ִ אׁש ֵ ר ְ ּב and א ָ ר ָ ּב is disputed by some, but should not be. Some interpreters construe א ָ ר ָ ּב as if it were in a construct or bound relationship with ית ִ אׁש ֵ ר, translating in the beginning of God's creating. But א ָ ר ָ ּב is a finite verb and not an infinitive; normally...