Introductory Bit

Above: an illustration of Genesis 1:1-3 as found in Christian David Ginsburg’s Chamisha Chumshe Torah, here.

Controversy about the meaning of the Bible begins no later than the first verse of the Bible, shown above in Hebrew. The great mediator of the Hebrew tradition to Western Christianity was Jerome, whose Vulgate for these three verses reads as below. (The image is from the 1590 edition of the Sixtine Vulgate, here.)

For those who don’t read Latin, the Latin Vulgate reads about the same way as the famous English King James Bible, shown below in Scrivener’s famous edition:

In other words, the materials in verses 1, 2, and 3 constitute independent sentences. This has been the dominant reading among Christian readers throughout most of Christian history.

There is more than one way to construe these three Hebrew verses, however. The prominent medieval commentator Rashi, whose commentary is still one of the standard references in Orthodox Judaism, read verse 1 as a temporal clause, and 1-3 as an extended sentence in which the main clause is in verse 3. Following Rashi’s lead would yield something like what one finds in the 1927 Old Testament: An American Edition, published by the University of Chicago Press:

When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth being a desolate waste, with darkness covering the abyss and the spirit of God hovering over the waters, then God said,

“Let there be light!”

Let us call the Vulgate/KJV reading Option A. We’ll call the Rashi/America Translation reading Option C. What are we skipping over?

In Option A, Verse 1 is a main clause unto itself. In Option C, verse one sets up a long sentence, the main clause of which appears only in verse 3. There’s also a reading where Verse 1 is a subordinate clause and the main clause is in verse 2. This is what one finds in the NRSV-UE:

When God began to create the heavens and the earth, ² the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. ³ Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

We’ll call this last one Option B. It is probably less common than A or C.

On to the Meat of the Post

The intention of this post is not to trace out all the arguments in favor of the various options, nor is it to tell you which option I favor. (I favor Option C at the moment, but who am I? I might be convinced of something else by the time I finish writing this post.)

My intention here is simply to record the opinions of as many significant voices on the issue as possible, to try to get a picture of how scholarly opinions on the question are and have been distributed.

Sadly, I do not read German. Perhaps I should do something about that, as a lot of the early history of biblical scholarship is only accessible in German. On the other hand, AI is racing along so fast that I don’t know how long it will be until I can have any German work I want translated pretty easily as cheaply. So who knows?

1885

It appears that Rashi’s Option C found favor in the eyes of Heinrich Ewald. In 1885, T.K. Cheyne posted a note against C, and in favor of A, in Hebraica, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Oct., 1885), pp. 49-50, in “NOTES ON GENESIS I., 1, and XXIV. 14.” His defense of Option A runs about a page, and seems just to be a quick introduction in English to what is perhaps a more substantial conversation in German — Cheyne rejects the view of German scholar Heinrich Ewald in favor of the view of German scholar Karl Heinrich Graf.

1890

Perowne (1890), in the Expositor, published some “Notes on Genesis”, in which he analyzes Genesis 1:1 in terms of Option A, and clarifies that he rejects B and C on stylistic grounds:

¹ Other renderings which carry on the construction into the next verse, such as, “In the beginning, when God created the heaven and the earth, then the earth was,” etc. or, “In the beginning, when … and the earth was, … God said, Let there be light,” are grammatically unnecessary, and quite out of harmony with the simple style of the document.

1892

Happily, I do manage to get a peek into what is going on in the German-speaking world through a translation of Auguste Dillmann’s 1892 commentary on Genesis. You may see this translation here. On pages 54-55 he explains why he prefers C. In line with the purposes of this post, we will not dwell on his reasons here, but for our present purposes I’m very interested in his avowal that C is a decidedly minority opinion (p. 53):

According to the ancient translations, the Masoretes, and most expositors: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1899

In 1899, Wellhausen’s Composition der Hexateuchs appeared, including this footnote on page 185:

I do not sprecken the slightest bit of Deutsch, and will have to rely on ChatGPT to get me some kind of sense of the passage:

‘In the beginning [God] created’ — before the first day? ‘And the earth was desolate‘ — this implies an extended period of time preceding the first day, and yet still lies within the beginning. One might appeal here to Rashi’s construction, but this seems improbable. The idea of creation emerging from eternal chaos is contradictory — indeed — yet it fits Hebrew paganism. The phrase heaven and earth does not otherwise denote chaos but rather the cosmos. How, then, would the Hebrews have referred to chaos? As a potential world? Rather, as a world that did not yet exist — simply world. To forestall any misunderstanding, the description in verse 2 is provided. The grammatical objections to an absolute reading of the construct form בְּרֵאשִׁית (bere’shit) are entirely mistaken. The Jewish tradition already understood the passage as ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν (en archē epoiēsen), i.e., it was understood that one should read bere’shit as an absolute, not “she spoke bere’shit” (cf. Jerome, Quaestiones on Genesis 1:1). If one were to attempt to correct the Syriac adverbial to a proper construct form — for instance, suggesting בּראשתא instead of בראשיתא —Even so, one would not be justified in deriving the Hebrew form from Aramaic. For in earlier Hebrew, בְּרֵאשִׁית did not mean the beginning but rather the first part, the prime portion — and Genesis 1 still reflects this usage, along with many later traces of language and Aramaic influence, such as ברא (bara’, “to create”), מינ (min, “kind”), קימא (qima, “standing”), את ימי השביעי (et yemei hashevi‘i, “the days of the seventh”), נפש חיה (nefesh ḥayah, “living being”), and כבש (kavash, “to subdue”), where one finds the use of independent words rather than verbal suffixes.

It is enough to note for now that this constitutes a rejection of Option C in favor of Option A by an extremely prominent scholar.

1904

S. R. Driver, Genesis, 1904 relies on Perowne, and interprets the verse in terms of Option A:

In the beginning. Not absolutely, but relatively: at the beginning of the order of things which we see, and in the midst of which human history unfolds itself (Perowne, Expositor, Oct. 1890, p. 248).

However, Driver notes that “many moderns” favor B or C:

¹ Many modern scholars, however (including Dillmann), construe vv. 1–3 in this way: ‘In the beginning of God’s creating the heaven and the earth,—now the earth was without form, &c. [v. 2],—God said, Let there be light,’ &c. So already the celebrated Jewish commentator Rashi (A.D. 1040–1105), and similarly Ibn Ezra (1092–1167).

1910

John Skinner’s 1910 commentary on Genesis notes a preference for Option C, while noting that Option A is very common. However, there has been perhaps a shift toward C, or perhaps I am simply over-interpreting a subtle shift in wording. Where Dillmann claimed that “most expositors” favor A, Skinner p. 12 says that “all ancient V[ersio]ns and many moderns” favor A. Is it perhaps telling that he says “many” rather than “most”?

1914

Ryle, Herbert (1921 [1914]). Genesis. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Ryle favors Option A, but notes of Option C:

the heaven and the earth] These words express the Hebrew conception of the created universe. They do not denote, as has of late been suggested, “matter” in the mass, or in the rough. They embrace sky, earth, and ocean: cf. xiv. 19, 22, xxiv. 3; Dt. iii. 24.

Attention should be called to an alternative rendering of this verse, preferred by many eminent commentators. It turns upon the grammatical point that the first word of the verse, B’rēshîth, means literally “In beginning,” not “In the beginning,” which would be Bārēshîth. Consequently, it is contended that B’rēshîth, being grammatically in “the construct state,” should be translated “In the beginning of,” or “In the beginning when”; and not, as if in “the absolute state,” “In the beginning.” If this contention, i.e. that b’rēshîth is in the construct state, be correct, verse 1 will be the protasis; verse 2 will be a parenthesis; verse 3 will be the apodosis: “In the beginning when God created the heaven and the earth (now the earth was waste, &c. … upon the face of the waters), then God said, ‘Let there be light.’”

1924

Next we hear from W. F. Albright on the question, in Volume 43, 1924, issue 3/4 of the Journal of Biblical Literature, in an article entitled “Contributions to Biblical Archaeology and Philology”, pp. 363-393. He makes the fascinating claim, which I have not seen elsewhere, that the Masoretes deliberately punctuated Genesis 1:1 to read half-way between Options A and C:

As is well-known, there are two alternative explanations of the syntax of Gen. 1 1 f., both of which were recognized by the Masoretes as valid, and indicated by them implicitly in the vocalization of the first two words. They thus left it open to their successors either to read bereshit bero elohim, “in the beginning of God’s creating,” or bareshit bara elohim, “in the beginning God created”. The Greek transcriptions Bareseth and Bareseth indicate that the second alternative triumphed in ordinary exegesis, a fact established by the versions. On the other hand, ancient oriental parallels, especially from Mesopotamia, show that the first possibility is more original.

1927

As I mentioned briefly above, in 1927 the University of Chicago published a new translation of the Old Testament, with its text of Genesis done by Theophile J. Meeks. It gives Option C.

1928

In 1928, we come to “The Syntax and Meaning of Genesis 1:1-3” by J. M. Powis Smith in The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 44:2, pp. 108-115.

While Cheyne held to Option A, Albright held C to be original, but left some space for A as a legitimate interpretation of the Masoretic Text as it stands, Powis Smith more definitely insists that Option A is correct.

Still, Smith makes a curious statement, indicating that he is working against a trend:

In all of these cases it may be noted that the construct is made definite by the clause depending upon and defining it. So we may, without fear, translate Gen. 1:1, “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth.” This view has been held b some scholars, e.g. Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ewald, Dillmann, Holzinger, and Skinner. But since Wellhausen, Composition der Hexateuch, page 185, note 1, it has been more commonly passed over in favor of the treatment of verse 1 as a complete sentence. So, e.g. Gunkel, Procksch, Mitchell, Ryle, following Calvin and all the versions.

Wellhausen wrote his note in 1899, so Powis Smith is alleging that the single footnote has cast a three-decade shadow over the interpretation of this passage.

1944

From the 1961 English translation of Cassuto’s 1944 A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part 1: From Adam to Noah, Genesis I – VI 8 . Translated by Israel Abrahams.

On pages 19 and 20, Cassuto argues in favor of Option A.

1957

Harry M. Orlinsky, “The Plain Meaning of RU^Aḥ in Gen. 1.2“. The Jewish Quarterly Review. Vol. 48, No. 2, Dropsie College Jubilee Alumni Issue (Oct., 1957), pp. 174-182 (9 pages)

On p. 182, Orlinsky gives a translation of Genesis 1:1-3 which indicates a preference for Option C.

1963

von Rad, Gerhard (1963). Genesis. On pp. 6-7, it can be seen that von Rad prefers Option A.

1963

William R. Lane wrote a fascinating article, “The Initiation of Creation“, in Volume 13, Fascicle 1 (January 1963), pp. 63-73 of Vetus Testamentum. In it, he remarks on the constant push and pull between Options A and C. He alleges that most commentators are motivated by considerations more theological than grammatical, and then mounts a very interesting argument that the two translations do not in fact reflect different theologies.

1964

Speiser (1964). Genesis. The Anchor Bible.

Speiser favors Option C (pp. 3, 12).

1974

Westermann, Claus (1984 translation, 1974 original). Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary. P. 94 favors Option A.

1975

Bruce Waltke, in 1975, mounted a sustained defense of Option A in Bibliotheca Sacra, “The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1-3”, part III, issue 575, pp. 216-228. The interested reader who can track down part I will find an interesting view into how Waltke is approaching the whole subject.

1983

Orlinsky, Harry M. “Enigmatic Bible Passages: The Plain Meaning of Genesis 1:1-3“. The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 207-209. The American Schools of Oriental Research.

Here Orlinsky goes for option C, just as in 1957, but it noteworthy to me just how quickly and decisively he dispenses with Option A:

In view of this approach to translation, one might think that ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1, King James Version) is a literal rendering of the Hebrew. Yet this is not what the Hebrew means at all. The very first word, bereshith, as every student of biblical Hebrew knows, means ‘In the beginning of, “with the word or phrase that follows indicating the object (as in ‘In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah” Jeremiah 26:1, King James Version).

1992

Jack Sasson. “Time…to Begin,” pp. 183-194 in “Sha^carei Talmon”: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon. Ed.by M. Fishbane, E. Tov, and W.W. Fields. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Jack Sasson, p. 187-188:

Although there are competent philologists who still defend the traditional translation, I personally think that this exegesis is really beyond dispute: first, because it is supported by grammar and syntax; second, because other creation narratives similarly open with temporal or circumstantial clauses; and third, because the first of God’s creative injunctions does not come until v. 3.

1996

Robert Alter’s ground-breaking translation of Genesis appeared in 1996, and he translates in terms of Option C:

When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God’s breath hovering over the waters, God said, “Let there be light.”

2000

Fischer, Loren (2000). Genesis: A Royal Epic, p. 63:

"When Elohim began to form the heavens and the earth,
The earth was devastation and desolation,
Darkness was over [the] deep,
The wind of Elohim was storming over the waters,

"Elohim said:
           'Let there be light.'
There was light."

I would count this as a vote for Option C.

2005

Noort, Ed. “The Creation of Light in Genesis 1:1-5: Remarks on the Function of Light and Darkness in the Opening Verses of the Hebrew Bible”, pp. 3-20. In van Kooten, George H., ed., The Creation of Heaven and Earth: Re-interpretations of Genesis I in the Context of Judaism,

Although uncertainties remain, there is no compelling reason to translate v. 1 in another way than ‘In the beginning Elohim created heaven and earth’, understanding it as the heading and summa of the whole Priestly account of creation. This makes vv. 2 and 3 separate verses with the act of creation starting in v. 3.

2007

Baasten, Martin. “First Things First: The Syntax of Gen 1:1 – 3 Revisited”. In Studies in Hebrew Literature and Jewish Culture Presented to Albert van der Heide on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, edited by M. F. J. Baasten and R. Munk, 169 – 87. Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Thought 12. Dordrecht: Springer.

2008

Bandstra, Barry (2008). Genesis 1-11: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text. Bandstra prefers Option A.

2008

Robert Holmstedt, in Vetus Testamentum, writes “The Restrictive Syntax of Genesis i 1”. He sides with Option C, although his analysis is not the same as Rashi’s.

2009

Wolde, Ellen van (2009). “Why the Verb ברא Does Not Mean ‘to
Create’ in Genesis 1.1–2.4a”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament.

Van Wolde makes a very interesting care for reading ברא as ‘separated’ instead of ‘created’. But as far as our current question is concerned, she accepts Holmstedt’s analysis: Option C.

2010

Mark Smith, in The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1, favors option C (pp. 43-6).

2011

Blenkinsopp, Joseph (2011). Creation, Un-creation, and Re-creation: A Discoursive Commentary on Genesis 1-11. On page 30, Blenkinsopp offers an unequivocal endorsement of Option C.

This parsing [Option C] of Gen. 1:1-2 may be unfamiliar but is linguistically and exegetically justified as an alternative to the translation which became standard in Judaism and Christianity …

… it has been known at least from the Middle Ages — for example, in the commentary of the eleventh-century Jewish scholar Rashi — that from the linguistic and exegetical point of view this reading [Option A] is not the preferred option in strictly exegetical terms. This conclusion is acknowledged in several major modern translations (NRSV, JPS, NAB, NEB, but not REB).

2013

Ziony Zevit, What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden (2013). Option C:

In the beginning of God creating the heavens and the earth–and the earth was unformed and void and darkness over the face of the deep and a wind of God [or “a powerful wind”] hovering over the face of the waters–and God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

2021

Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (1948) produced the translation of the Torah that appears in the Koren Tanakh, Magerman Edition. It appears that he favored Option B.

When God began creating heaven and earth, the earth was void and desolate, there was darkness on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved over the waters. God said, “Let there be light.

2022

Wyatt, Nicholas (2022). “Distinguishing Wood and Trees in the Waters: Creation in Biblical Thought”. pp. 203-252 in Watson, Rebecca S. and Adrian H. W. Curtis, Conversations on Canaanite and Biblical Themes: Creation, Chaos and Monotheism.