Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/114



tradition P betrays his dependence on J$2$; and (3) that J$2$ in turn is markedly dependent on Babylonian sources (see Urgesch. 463-496, and the summary on p. 491 f.). Even if all these observations be well founded, it is obvious that they fall far short of a demonstration of Bu.'s thesis. It is a plausible conjecture so long as we assume that little was written beyond what we have direct or indirect evidence of (ib. 463$1$); but when we realise how little is known of the diffusion of literary activity in ancient Israel, the presumption that J$2$ was the particular writer who threw the Hebrew cosmogony into shape becomes very slender indeed.

1. We are confronted at the outset by a troublesome question of syntax which affects the sense of every member of v.$1$. While all ancient Vns. and many moderns take the verse as a complete sentence, others (following Rashi and Ibn Ezra) treat it as a temporal clause, subordinate either to v.$3$ (Rashi, and so most) or v.$2$ (Ibn Ezra, apparently). On the latter view the verse will read: In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth: being in the const. state, followed by a clause as gen. (cf. Is. 29$1$, Hos. 1$2$ etc.; and see G-K. § 130 d; Dav. § 25). In a note below reasons are given for preferring this construction to the other; but a decision is difficult, and in dealing with

1.—] The form is probably contracted from (cf. ), and therefore not derived directly from. It signifies primarily the first (or best) part of a thing: Gn. 10$10$ ('nucleus'), 49$3$ ('first product'), Dt. 33$21$, Am. 6$6$ etc. (On its ritual sense as the first part of crops, etc., see Gray's note, Num. 226 ff.). From this it easily glides into a temporal sense, as the first stage of a process or series of events: Ho. 9$10$ ('in its first stage'), Dt. 11$12$ (of the year), Jb. 8$7$ 40$19$ (a man's life), Is. 46$10$ (starting point of a series), etc. We. (Prol.$6$ 386) has said that Dt. 11$12$ is the earliest instance of the temporal sense; but the distinction between 'first part' and 'temporal beginning' is so impalpable that not much importance can be attached to the remark. It is of more consequence to observe that at no period of the language does the temporal sense go beyond the definition already given, viz. the first stage of a process, either explicitly indicated or clearly implied. That being so, the prevalent determinate construction becomes intelligible. That in its ceremonial sense the word should be used absolutely was to be expected (so Lv. 2$12$ [Nu. 18$12$] Neh. 12$44$: with these may be taken also Dt. 33$21$). In its temporal applications it is always defined by gen. or suff. except in Is. 46$10$, where the antithesis to inevitably suggests the intervening series of which  is the initial phase. It is therefore doubtful if could be used of an absolute beginning detached from its sequel, or of an indefinite past, like or (see Is. 1$26$, Gn. 13$3$).—This brings us to the question of