Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/115

 v.$1$ it is necessary to leave the alternative open.—In the beginning] If the clause be subordinate the reference of is defined by what immediately follows, and no further question arises. But if it be an independent statement beginning is used absolutely (as in Jn. 1$1$), and two interpretations become possible: (a) that the verse asserts the creation (ex nihilo) of the primæval chaos described in v.$2$; or (b) that it summarises the whole creative process narrated in the chapter. The former view has prevailed in Jewish and Christian theology, and is still supported by the weighty authority of We. But (1) it is not in accordance with the usage of (see below); (2) it is not required by the word 'create,'—a created chaos is perhaps a contradiction (Is. 45$18$ ), and We. himself

syntax. Three constructions have been proposed: (a) v.$1$ an independent sentence (all Vns. and 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, and a simple and majestic opening. The absence of the art. tells against it, but is by no means decisive. At most it is a matter of pointing, and the sporadic Greek transliterations (Field, Hexap.), and (Lagarde, Ankünd. 5), alongside of, may show that in ancient times the first word was sometimes read. Even the Mass. pointing does not necessarily imply that the word was meant as const.; is never found with art., and 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., , : cf. Kön. S. § 294 g). The construction seems to me, however, opposed to the essentially relative idea of ,—its express reference to that of which it is the beginning (see above). (b) v.$1$ protasis: v.$2$ parenthesis: v.$3$ apodosis;—When God began to create —now the earth was —God said, Let there be light. So Ra. Ew. Di. Ho. Gu. al.—practically all who reject (a). Although first appearing explicitly in Ra. († 1105), it has been argued that this represents the old Jewish tradition, and that (a) came in under. ]