Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/117

 the following points are to be noted: (a) The most important fact is that it is used exclusively of divine activity—a restriction to which perhaps no parallel can be found in other languages (see We. Prol.$6$ 304). (b) The idea of novelty (Is. 48$6f.$ 41$20$ 65$17f.$, Jer. 31$21$) or extraordinariness (Ex. 34$10$, Nu. 16$30$ [J]) of result is frequently implied, and it is noteworthy that this is the case in the only two passages of certainly early date where the word occurs. (c) It is probable also that it contains the idea of effortless production (such as befits the Almighty) by word or volition (Ps. 33$9$). (d) It is obvious (from this chapter and many passages) that the sense stops short of creatio ex nihilo,—an idea first explicitly occurring in 2 Mac. 7$28$. At the same time the facts just stated, and the further circumstance that the word is always used with acc. of product and never of material, constitute a long advance towards the full theological doctrine, and make the word 'create' a suitable vehicle for it.

Close parallels (for it is hard to see that the makes any essential difference) are Gn. 7$10$ (J), 22$1$ (E), or (with impf.), Lv. 7$16b$ (P). The construction is not appreciably harsher than in the analogous case of 2$5$, where it has been freely adopted.—] enters fully into OT usage only on the eve of the Exile. Apart from three critically dubious passages (Am. 4$13$, Is. 4$5$, Jer. 31$21$), its first emergence in prophecy is in Ezk. (3 times); it is specially characteristic of II Is. (20 times), in P 10 times, and in other late passages 8 times. The proof of pre-exilic use rests on Ex. 34$10$, Nu. 16$30$ (J), Dt. 4$32$. There is no reason to doubt that it belongs to the early language; what can be fairly said is that at the Exile the thought of the divine creation of the world became prominent in the prophetic theology, and that for this reason the term which expressed it technically obtained a currency it had not previously enjoyed. The primary idea is uncertain. It is commonly regarded as the root of a Piel meaning 'cut,' hence 'form by cutting,' 'carve,' 'fashion,' (Ar. bara$y$, Phœn. [CIS, i. 347$4$]: see BDB, s.v.; Lane, Lex. 197 b; Lidzbarski, NS Epigr. 244 [with ?]); but the evidence of the connexion is very slight. The only place where could mean 'carve' is Ezk. 21$24 bis$; and there the text is almost certainly corrupt (see Corn., Toy, Kraetschmar, ad loc.). Elsewhere it means 'cut