The grammatical relationship between these two verses have been a subject of interest for a long time. Four view of this relationship has been proposed. Of these the so-called Gap Theory is discussed elsewhere.
The translation "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" is often called the 'traditional' translation, and is followed by most English translations. In the late 11th Cent and early 12th Cent, however, two renowned rabbis, first Rashi and then Ibn Ezra proposed two different versions of a new reading, that v1 should be translated as "In the beginning when God created," therefore, making it a temporal clause instead of an independent one. Where they differ is whether v2 (Ibn Ezra) or v3 (Rashi) should be the principal clause (or apodosis).
Traditional Reading
V1 is an independent clause: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." V2 begins a new paragraph altogether.
Rashi
V1 is a temporal clause (protasis), v2 is a parenthetical clause, while v3 is the principal clause (apodosis): "When God began to create the heavens and the earth—the earth being formless and void, and . . . and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters—God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."
Ibn Ezra
V1 is a temporal clause (protasis) and v2 is the principal clause (apodosis): "When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void, and darkness . . . and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." V3 then begins a new paragraph.
All three proposals can be defended on the basis of the Hebrew grammar. So what are their merits or lack of them?
Basic to Rashi's and Ibn's readings is that v1 is a temporal and, therefore, dependent clause. To do this they argue that the word reshit, 'beginning,' is pointed as an indefinite noun, i.e., the word bereshit should be read "in beginning." Therefore, the reading "in the beginning" is not decisive. Perhaps it is not, but neither is their reading which, in fact, faces more other difficulties.
1) According to Rashi's reading, God's creation began with a tohu wabohu (formlessness and void) in His hand. This goes against every bit of Old Testament theology both about God and of the concept of creation. "As a matter of fact," observes Edward Arbez and John Weisengoff, "the whole of Gen. 1 is permeated with the absolute transcendance of God and of the utter dependence on God for its existence. The idea of a "creatio ex nihilo" seems to be so logically bound up with the author's view of God that one can hardly refuse to see it in his opening statement. This conclusion is reinforced by bereshith, which implies that time was when there was nothing. It is not surprising, therefore, that many liberal as well as conservative scholars admit that creatio ex nihilo, if not directly taught, at least is presupposed in Gen."1
2) Rashi's contention about the definiteness of reshit is also not as strong as it first appears. Omission of the definite article occurs quite often in temporal phrases and should not be regarded as construct. Its use in Isa 46:10, pointed as an indefinite (though prefixed by the preposition 'from' instead) clearly indicates from the context that it is to be understood as definite. This is also supported by the similar use of merosh, "from [the] beginning" in Prov 8:23. Furthermore, the kind of construction required by Rashi's proposal (though not unattested in the OT) usually uses the infinitive (bero' in this case) rather than the perfective (bara') as it is in the Massoretic text.
3) Though not decisive but proving quite significant is the fact that both proposals tear against the stylistics of the text. Gen 1 is a carefully composed unit,2, characterized by short brisk sentences. V1, taken as an independent statement, has only 7 words; v2, with its three independent sentences, has 4, 4, and 6 respectively. The proposals by Rashi and Ibn Ezra of a long and complicated sentence—a main clause, with temporal asides, simply do not conform to the short brisk style evident in the text. H. Shanks rightly asks, "Why adapt a translation that has been aptly described as a verzweifelt geschmacklose construction, one which destroys a sublime opening to the world's greatest book?"3
As noted by Edward Arbez and John Weisengoff,
A construction of the type supposed by the advocates of this view [Rashi's] would, therefore, have to be admitted, only if it were necessary, or if it meant a real improvement on the sense yielded by the other construction. As a matter of fact, however, many of its advocates decide in its favor only after considerable hesitation. This applies also the the case of those who take v.2 as the apodosis of v.1 [Ibn Ezra's]. If the advocates themselves of this view adopt it with reservtions in many instances, quite obviously their case cannot be too strong.4
As a result of these objections, most modern translations remain committed to the 'traditional' reading that v1 is a principal, independent clause while v2 begins a new paragraph. In recent years, however, advocates of v1 being an temporal clause are becoming more vocal again. So, what changed?
As far as can be perceived, two currents of influences have contributed to this new movement. The first is the difficult task of how to square Genesis's teaching about human origins with the concept of evolution. This task has pulled evangelical Christians in two directions. One is to harden on the insistence that Adam and Eve were made de novo, by divine fiat, and from them all humans are descended. The other approach is to find some kind of rapprochement (some would say 'accomodation') to evolution whose reality is increasingly made undeniable by the great convergence of evidences from all branches of science but particularly of genetic science. Scholars taking this path believe that faithfulness to Scriptures require them to understand Adam and Eve that, though historical figures, are rather archetypes, i.e., representatives "in whom all others in the group are embodied."
The other stream of influence began in the late 19th Cent when a young archaeologist named George Adam Smith, working in the British Museum, began translating a cuneiform tablet that had been unearthed from the library of King Ashurbanipal in Nineveh some years earlier. The narrative that George Adam Smith discovered became known as the Enuma Elish; it quickly came to be called the Babylonian Creation Account for what was thought to be evident similarities to the Genesis account, and aroused considerable excitement and led some scholars to claim that the book of Genesis was dependent upon the document as its source material. Further examination of the document by scholars soon showed that the document has actually little to say about creation. Interest in the Enuma Elish (for biblical scholars) faded for a few decades until recent years when it, and other ancient Near Eastern cosmologies, found new life in the rapprochement with evolution. To date, however, most of these arguments that Genesis was written with the intention of refuting these creation myths of Israel's neighbours and the argument that Gen 1:1 should be read as a temporal clause (i.e., "when God began to create . . .") are, therefore, forced and unconvincing. While we keep our eyes open to new possibilities in learning, there is no clear need for the moment to change the traditional translation.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."
Though this translation seems simple enough, it actually allows for two different ways of understanding the relationship between v1 and the rest of the chapter:
1) v1 is an independent statement that serves as an introduction and summary for the entire chapter.
2) v1 describes the first act of creation while v2-3 describes subsequent phases in God's creative activity.
Both views have their equally capable advocates; S. R. Driver, H. Gunkel, W. Zimmerli, G. von Rad, W. Eichrodt, U. Cassuto, C. Westermann (among others) for the first, and D. Kidner, N. H. Ridderbos, E. J. Young, B. S. Childs, G. F. Hasel, W. H. Gispen, and G. Wenham (among others) for the second, but with a majority of scholars falling on the former.
In favour of 2) is its antiquity. Noting also that it is unlikely that vv2-3 has been borrowed from extrabiblical (e.g., Mesoptamian) sources, these verses must, therefore, have come from the same person who penned v1, Wenham argues that it is "most natural to interpret the text synchronically, i.e., v1: the first creative act; v2: consequence of v1; v3: first creative word."4 That this is "most natural," however, is not self-evident.5 In the end, we believe, there is insufficient finesse in the text for us to be decisive on either options, and neither are the differences between them theologically significant.
Low Chai Hok
©Alberith, 2020