Genesis 1:1-3 (again) -- an interesting article

[Jayhawker Soule]

This Shabbat Jews will once again be reading Parashat Bre****, the opening 'chapters' of the book of Genesis, so it's not surprising that a number of articles might appear focusing on the first few verses of our Torah.

I've addressed these verses before -- see, for example, Gen 1:1,2 Creation ex nihilo ... NOT, posted on November 7, 2005. almost exactly fourteen years ago. Feel free to review it for context, but it's really not necessary.

My reason for creating this post is to share what I found to be a very thought provoking article on the topic. See: The Genesis of Time.

 

[shmogie]

This Shabbat Jews will once again be reading Parashat Bre****, the opening 'chapters' of the book of Genesis, so it's not surprising that a number of articles might appear focusing on the first few verses of our Torah.

I've addressed these verses before -- see, for example, Gen 1:1,2 Creation ex nihilo ... NOT, posted on November 7, 2005. almost exactly fourteen years ago. Feel free to review it for context, but it's really not necessary.

My reason for creating this post is to share what I found to be a very thought provoking article on the topic. See: The Genesis of Time.

Quite interesting. However, the question is begged, were the components of this chaos eternal ? If so, what are the implications of this regarding God ?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Thanks for posting that interesting paper, and it represents a lot of work. I enjoy it thoroughly. My comments:

In his footnote 16 he says "...I find it far-fetched, however, that Hebrew mythographers would ferret out Enūma eliš just to develop a polemic against it...." in order to support his words "A widely held opinion is that Hebrew cosmographers came to be adapters of a shared mythopoetic that was best represented in Mesopotamia. I have my doubts."

It doesn't sound far fetched to me, but I don't know what he knows. Maybe he just hasn't explored that avenue. I have noted before how ancient Egyptian myth seems to be parodied and rejected by the story of Moses and the plagues and by other features in the Pentateuch (first five books of the canon). I like what he says, but I think he's overlooking something there.

I have read it twice but still cannot follow his argument that time begins at the creation of the day. He seems to be basing this on similarity to other creation myths, but I'm not sure. He also doesn't like the use of the term day. Perhaps his focus on time is a mistake. The preexisting elements are judged by the light, so why doesn't he mention that? This story comes bound together with the laws of 'Kashrut' determining what is or isn't kosher. It goes along very well with differentiation of Israel from the nations around it. They are prexisting elements, after all. Where does time fit in to it, unless he is considering time as a symbol. Maybe he considers the time of Israel separate, but he doesn't say so. In support of my comment about kashrut, I notice that many of the kosher designations indicate a difference between dark dwelling and light dwelling creatures, and there is a consistent dark/light theme in biblical canon to me indicating a separation of the behaviors of other nations from Israel.

His final paragraph seems to assume a lot: "These thinkers had traditions (rather than facts) by which to assess the validity of their own construction; but they also had a vision by which to weave their beliefs into a dramatic whole, granting their ancestors a privileged linkage to their one and only true God. And they did so without breaking into poetry by which to camouflage their conviction."

I don't see why we should assume that they are assessing the validity of their own construction or that they are weaving beliefs just for the sake of a history. They are establishing a moral standard certainly, but he doesn't examine that. He seems to view everything as the current of evolving literature with no impact on the people writing them except to explain their own existence. These are moral texts, and they explicitly make the behaviors of other nations immoral. The item 'Time' seems like it would be subservient to that purpose and merely another symbol in the text rather than a shaper of the whole story. It would have interested someone who was familier with previous myths, and to them yes time would have been the first creation after chaos. I do recognize that but still don't follow his conclusions.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Quite interesting. However, the question is begged, were the components of this chaos eternal ? If so, what are the implications of this regarding God ?

Precisely. And I fully understand that, more often than not, ambiguity is less than satisfying.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks for posting that interesting paper, and it represents a lot of work. I enjoy it thoroughly.

And thank you for your comments, which I enjoyed as well.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This Shabbat Jews will once again be reading Parashat Bre****, the opening 'chapters' of the book of Genesis, so it's not surprising that a number of articles might appear focusing on the first few verses of our Torah.

I've addressed these verses before -- see, for example, Gen 1:1,2 Creation ex nihilo ... NOT, posted on November 7, 2005. almost exactly fourteen years ago. Feel free to review it for context, but it's really not necessary.

My reason for creating this post is to share what I found to be a very thought provoking article on the topic. See: The Genesis of Time.

Thank you for the thoughtful and well written article.

My one comment would be that in saying "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" it means that these basics were created by God BEFORE the creation of light on the first day.

The only thing I would add to your essay would be a sentence or two in the paragraph about the possible mythology of the Genesis account that its historicity is also challenged by science, and that many Jews and Christians do not take the account literally, although they respect it for the eternal truths it teaches.

Well done!

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I hold to the 'Gap Theory' concerning (Gen. 1:1-2). I believe it is supported in Scripture. (Gen. 1:1) speaks to original creation. Something occurred which cast the earth in it's chaotic state in (Gen. 1:2). It is believed that the fall of satan is that event.

As to the creation of light on the first day, that was the light of God. The creation later of the sun and moon on the fourth day would replace that light.

Note that we are never told of any artificial light in the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle. In the outer court was the artificial light of the sun. In the Holy Place was the artificial light of the lampstand. In the Holy of Holies, only the Light of God.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thank you for the thoughtful and well written article.

My one comment would be that in saying "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" it means that these basics were created by God BEFORE the creation of light on the first day.

The only thing I would add to your essay would be a sentence or two in the paragraph about the possible mythology of the Genesis account that its historicity is also challenged by science, and that many Jews and Christians do not take the account literally, although they respect it for the eternal truths it teaches.

Well done!

Thank you, but I would encourage you to reread the article.

 

[Tumah]

This Shabbat Jews will once again be reading Parashat Bre****, the opening 'chapters' of the book of Genesis, so it's not surprising that a number of articles might appear focusing on the first few verses of our Torah.

I've addressed these verses before -- see, for example, Gen 1:1,2 Creation ex nihilo ... NOT, posted on November 7, 2005. almost exactly fourteen years ago. Feel free to review it for context, but it's really not necessary.

My reason for creating this post is to share what I found to be a very thought provoking article on the topic. See: The Genesis of Time.

I think that the majority of Jewish scholars take the position of creation ex nihilo and ex materia. That is, an initial creation ex nihilo out of which the rest of the creation past verse 1 occurs. The author quotes Rashi and Ibn Ezra, in what I understand to be support of creation ex materia alone, I'm not sure that's the case for either of them though. In 1:14 Rashi takes the Talmudic opinion that the entire creation took place on the first day (perhaps in potential).

Ibn Ezra is a lot a bit less clear to me. His explanation of the word bara as "cut from", does seem to suggest that he sees the creation as coming from an earlier substance. But Nachmanides hylomorphic interpretation also could be explained as the creation coming out of the hyle, yet Nachmanides does speak of creation as ex nihilo. So in the meantime, I believe Ibn Ezra understands the first chapter to be explaining events after an initial creation, where those first materials are made functional.

What I wanted to get to though, was that the author takes as the "simple meaning", is not simple at all. The question ultimately comes down to whether the suffix of the first word is an "attached" form of the word or not. "Attached" in this case means that the grammatical form the word takes usually indicates the equivalent of the English preposition "of". In this case, "In the beginning of". If the correct translation is "In the beginning of", the next word shouldn't be a verb in the past tense. As in English, "In the beginning of, G-d created the Heavens and the Earth", makes no sense.

The Talmudic Rabbis and commentaries take two main approaches to solving the simple meaning: Those who say the word is an attached form and they alter the second word by explaining it should be read as "creating" instead of "created"; and those who say that the word isn't an attached form, and they alter the first word by dropping the preposition. So really, either way, you'r going to have to twist something to get it to fit and it's simply a matter of what. That being so, I don't really see his point against the Greek translation as valid.

Interestingly, Ibn Ezra is one of those who explain that the word doesn't necessarily take the attached form - and he brings Deut. 33:21 as proof. However, he then goes on to translate the verse as though it is an attached form, although without explaining why he's chosen to do so.

Another point in the article was where the author states:

Here is how the biblical version differed: As God began to muster futures for all these purposeless elements, he first conjures up a component ex nihilo, “from nothing,” merely by pronouncement. This component is אוֹר, “light.”...

As these two entities course after each other—primordial darkness as‎ עֶרֶב, “evening,” then newly generated “day” as בֹקֶר, “morning”—something entirely new comes to be...That is, “one day” as a measure for time as well as for its sequential alternation of nighttime and daytime, our civil day.

Brief though it may be, this passage introduces a God who is multi-faceted beyond the normal potential of any single pagan national deity: He summons, creates out of nothing, reorders and gives new shapes to existing elements.​

I'm not sure if the author of the article didn't think this through or if he's claiming that the 'authors' of the Torah didn't think this through. He explains G-d as capable of creating ex nihilo and for having created time. So he's ultimately saying that the primordial elements preceded time, which means they existed eternally with G-d. That directly contradicts the end of note 6 where he quotes Isa. 44:6.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thank you, @Tumah. I want to give more thought to what you wrote. This note is simply to acknowledge your thoughtful post.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think that the majority of Jewish scholars take the position of creation ex nihilo and ex materia. That is, an initial creation ex nihilo out of which the rest of the creation past verse 1 occurs. The author quotes Rashi and Ibn Ezra, in what I understand to be support of creation ex materia alone, I'm not sure that's the case for either of them though. In 1:14 Rashi takes the Talmudic opinion that the entire creation took place on the first day (perhaps in potential).

I suspect that you're right. However, I seriously doubt that the tradition that gave us the opening verses of Genesis sought to convey this or even thought about the matter. To quote Plaut,

Our [JPS] translation follows Rashi ... Later scholars used the translation "In the beginning" as proof that God created out of nothing (ex nihilo), but it is not likely that the biblical author was concerned with this problem. - source​

What I wanted to get to though, was that the author takes as the "simple meaning", is not simple at all. The question ultimately comes down to whether the suffix of the first word is an "attached" form of the word or not. "Attached" in this case means that the grammatical form the word takes usually indicates the equivalent of the English preposition "of". In this case, "In the beginning of". If the correct translation is "In the beginning of", the next word shouldn't be a verb in the past tense. As in English, "In the beginning of, G-d created the Heavens and the Earth", makes no sense.

If only that was the only grammatical curiosity in our Torah!

Nevertheless, significant translations -- used by many if not most English speaking Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Jews -- translate the word as being in the construct state (smichut), These include the various Torah's employing the New JPS translation (e.g. The Jewish Study Bible, The Plaut Commentary, Etz Hayim, etc) and the translations of Robert Alter, Everett Fox, and Richard Elliott Friedman.

Robert Alter offers:

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 water, ...​

The Everett Fox translation reads:

At the beginning of God's creating of the heavens and the earth,
when the earth was wild and waste,
darkness over the face of the Ocean,
rushing-spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters --​

We even see this in the online translation offered by Chabad,org.

 

[Tumah]

I was hoping you'd respond further, so thanks.

I suspect that you're right. However, I seriously doubt that the tradition that gave us the opening verses of Genesis sought to convey this or even thought about the matter. To quote Plaut,

Our [JPS] translation follows Rashi ... Later scholars used the translation "In the beginning" as proof that God created out of nothing (ex nihilo), but it is not likely that the biblical author was concerned with this problem. - source​

I don't necessarily disagree that the simple meaning of the text isn't meant to simply describe the process of the creation without getting into a discussion of whether it was out of something else or not. My original thinking was that, that's actually Ibn Ezra's position.

If only that was the only grammatical curiosity in our Torah!

If it was, there'd be no Talmud!

Nevertheless, significant translations -- used by many if not most English speaking Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Jews -- translate the word as being in the construct state (smichut), These include the various Torah's employing the New JPS translation (e.g. The Jewish Study Bible, The Plaut Commentary, Etz Hayim, etc) and the translations of Robert Alter, Everett Fox, and Richard Elliott Friedman.

Robert Alter offers:

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 water, ...​

The Everett Fox translation reads:

At the beginning of God's creating of the heavens and the earth,
when the earth was wild and waste,
darkness over the face of the Ocean,
rushing-spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters --​

We even see this in the online translation offered by Chabad,org.

I'm not familiar with most of those translations, but your citation of Robert Alter seems to show that he doesn't use the construct state (thanks for that, I knew there was a word for smichut but I couldn't recall it). Notice the lack of possession towards the verb (create) and the altering of the state or aspect of the verb (from past tense to infinitive or perfective to imperfective). I guess he kind of takes a spot in between both positions.

The other translation you cited, follows that of Rashi/Ibn Ezra/Gersonides/etc, and I don't deny it as a possible translation (I'm pretty sure Chabad's translation follows Rashi in general, and they provide that commentary on the site).

I'm just don't see any value it giving this translation more weight than the other, as both require making alterations to the text - and as Ibn Ezra himself points out, there is also precedent for dropping the construct state. That's the thing that I have trouble with. Both translations require making alterations to the text. So it's hard for me to understand an academic consensus one way or the other.

As a side note, the Malbim considers this argument to be the basis of a Midrashic argument between two Talmudic Rabbis, Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Nachman (end of the 3rd century, I believe). The former's position is that light was created first and the latter is that the world was created first. This can easily be seen in the difference between the two translations.

 

[dybmh]

The former's position is that light was created first and the latter is that the world was created first.

Time was created before both, tho? ( Assuming the word "before" makes sense in this context )

 

[Tumah]

Time was created before both, tho? ( Assuming the word "before" makes sense in this context )

I would guess that time comes into existence simultaneously as a by-product of the change.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't necessarily disagree that the simple meaning of the text isn't meant to simply describe the process of the creation without getting into a discussion of whether it was out of something else or not. My original thinking was that, that's actually Ibn Ezra's position.

I think we can all agree that every translation is by necessity an interpretation. This must be even more the case with Biblical Hebrew. In his chapter Jewish Bible Scholarship and Translations in the United States, Sarna write that the JPS Kethubim (sic) translation committee

• ... stressed (in the preface) the inherent difficulties in translating the Hebrew, and the "as yet imperfect understanding of the language of the Bible." It refused to hazard emendations, and its favorite footnote read "meaning of Heb. uncertain." Instead of exuding confidence, it admitted right from the beginning that its translation had "not conveyed the fullness of the Hebrew, with its ambiguities, its overtones, and the richness that it caries from centuries of use." It made no triumphalistic claims. - source

That said, it is remarkable that we now have a number of modern English translations -- the work of a large number of highly respected scholars whose efforts are grounded in the latest relevant scholarship -- all of which explicitly reads the opening verse of Genesis as being in the construct state. It is not merely the predominant view, it is the pervasive view.

Within the US (and, I believe, Canada) the Reform movement uses the Plaut Commentary while the Conservative movement uses Etz Hayim -- both being commentaries on the NJPS translation.

I was frankly surprised to learn that the Jewish Reconstructionist Congregation uses the Richard Elliott Friedman translation and commentary. Much like the others, Friedman offers:

• In the beginning of God's creating the Skies and the earth -- when the earth had been shapeless and formless, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and God's spirit was hovering o the face of the water -- and God said ...

He then writes:

• 1:2 the earth had been. Here is a case in which a tiny point of grammar makes a difference for theology. In the Hebrew of this verse, the noun comes before the verb (in the perfect form). This is now known to be the way of conveying the past perfect in Biblical Hebrew. This point of grammar means that the verse does not mean "the earth was shapeless and formless" -- referring the condition of the earth starting the instant after it was created. This verse rather means that "the earth had been shapeless and formless" -- that is, it had already existed in this shapeless condition prior to the creation. Creation of matter in the Torah is not out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo), as many have claimed). And the Torah is not claiming to be telling events from the beginning of time.

By the way, in addition to the translations offered above, we can add the ArtScroll Series Stone Edition Tanach edited by Rabbi Nosson Scherman. Here too we read:

• In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth -- when the earth was astonishingly empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep, and the Devine Presence hovered upon the surface of the waters --

Again we see a rejection of the once standard "In the beginning, ..." translation.

I'm not familiar with most of those translations, but your citation of Robert Alter seems to show that he doesn't use the construct state (thanks for that, I knew there was a word for smichut but I couldn't recall it). Notice the lack of possession towards the verb (create) and the altering of the state or aspect of the verb (from past tense to infinitive or perfective to imperfective). I guess he kind of takes a spot in between both positions.

I believe that Alter views the BH text as being in the construct state and offers "when God began to create ..." as a more readable version of "In the beginning of God creating ..."

The other translation you cited, follows that of Rashi/Ibn Ezra/Gersonides/etc, and I don't deny it as a possible translation (I'm pretty sure Chabad's translation follows Rashi in general, and they provide that commentary on the site).

Agreed. But not all possibilities are created equal, and I would simply substitute "preferred translation" for your "possible translation." The alternative seems to be ...

• to argue that the above agreement is a fluke, and/or
• to dismiss decades of advances in the fields of Syro-Palestinian archaeology and Hebrew philology as being of little import.

As much as I deeply appreciate ibn Ezra and others, I suspect that modern language scholars may well have a more informed understanding of Biblical Hebrew.

I'm just don't see any value it giving this translation more weight than the other, as both require making alterations to the text - and as Ibn Ezra himself points out, there is also precedent for dropping the construct state. That's the thing that I have trouble with. Both translations require making alterations to the text. So it's hard for me to understand an academic consensus one way or the other.

I believe that the likes of Alter, Fox, Friedman, and the JPS reflect the best of modern scholarship and that scholarship matters.

As a side note, the Malbim considers this argument to be the basis of a Midrashic argument between two Talmudic Rabbis, Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Nachman (end of the 3rd century, I believe). The former's position is that light was created first and the latter is that the world was created first. This can easily be seen in the difference between the two translations.

Thanks.

 

[Tumah]

I think we can all agree that every translation is by necessity an interpretation. This must be even more the case with Biblical Hebrew. In his chapter Jewish Bible Scholarship and Translations in the United States, Sarna write that the JPS Kethubim (sic) translation committee

• ... stressed (in the preface) the inherent difficulties in translating the Hebrew, and the "as yet imperfect understanding of the language of the Bible." It refused to hazard emendations, and its favorite footnote read "meaning of Heb. uncertain." Instead of exuding confidence, it admitted right from the beginning that its translation had "not conveyed the fullness of the Hebrew, with its ambiguities, its overtones, and the richness that it caries from centuries of use." It made no triumphalistic claims. - source

That said, it is remarkable that we now have a number of modern English translations -- the work of a large number of highly respected scholars whose efforts are grounded in the latest relevant scholarship -- all of which explicitly reads the opening verse of Genesis as being in the construct state. It is not merely the predominant view, it is the pervasive view.

Within the US (and, I believe, Canada) the Reform movement uses the Plaut Commentary while the Conservative movement uses Etz Hayim -- both being commentaries on the NJPS translation.

I was frankly surprised to learn that the Jewish Reconstructionist Congregation uses the Richard Elliott Friedman translation and commentary. Much like the others, Friedman offers:

• In the beginning of God's creating the Skies and the earth -- when the earth had been shapeless and formless, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and God's spirit was hovering o the face of the water -- and God said ...

He then writes:

• 1:2 the earth had been. Here is a case in which a tiny point of grammar makes a difference for theology. In the Hebrew of this verse, the noun comes before the verb (in the perfect form). This is now known to be the way of conveying the past perfect in Biblical Hebrew. This point of grammar means that the verse does not mean "the earth was shapeless and formless" -- referring the condition of the earth starting the instant after it was created. This verse rather means that "the earth had been shapeless and formless" -- that is, it had already existed in this shapeless condition prior to the creation. Creation of matter in the Torah is not out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo), as many have claimed). And the Torah is not claiming to be telling events from the beginning of time.

By the way, in addition to the translations offered above, we can add the ArtScroll Series Stone Edition Tanach edited by Rabbi Nosson Scherman. Here too we read:

• In the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth -- when the earth was astonishingly empty, with darkness upon the surface of the deep, and the Devine Presence hovered upon the surface of the waters --

Again we see a rejection of the once standard "In the beginning, ..." translation.



I believe that Alter views the BH text as being in the construct state and offers "when God began to create ..." as a more readable version of "In the beginning of God creating ..."



Agreed. But not all possibilities are created equal, and I would simply substitute "preferred translation" for your "possible translation." The alternative seems to be ...

• to argue that the above agreement is a fluke, and/or
• to dismiss decades of advances in the fields of Syro-Palestinian archaeology and Hebrew philology as being of little import.

As much as I deeply appreciate ibn Ezra and others, I suspect that modern language scholars may well have a more informed understanding of Biblical Hebrew.



I believe that the likes of Alter, Fox, Friedman, and the JPS reflect the best of modern scholarship and that scholarship matters.



Thanks.

I hear what you're saying, but I'd be more interested in their arguments for that translation rather than just knowing that they do. Something that I can try to understand or disagree with.

For instance:

1:2 the earth had been. Here is a case in which a tiny point of grammar makes a difference for theology. In the Hebrew of this verse, the noun comes before the verb (in the perfect form). This is now known to be the way of conveying the past perfect in Biblical Hebrew. This point of grammar means that the verse does not mean "the earth was shapeless and formless" -- referring the condition of the earth starting the instant after it was created. This verse rather means that "the earth had been shapeless and formless" -- that is, it had already existed in this shapeless condition prior to the creation. Creation of matter in the Torah is not out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo), as many have claimed). And the Torah is not claiming to be telling events from the beginning of time.
​

There are two points here and I'll address them backwards.

The second is that the commentator conflates the "creation of matter" with the creation of the earth. The commentator claims that the creation of matter in the Torah is not out of nothing. But according to the commentators interpretation, the Torah isn't discussing the creation of matter, but the formation of already existing earth. According to this commentator, we don't know anything about how matter was created. We only know that land was formed from already existing earth and the Torah is silent about when/how that earth already came into existence.

And the first is that I don't think accepting that a noun before a perfect aspect verb requires that acceptance of everything that follows that point. In fact, I think the alteration he makes forces his interpretation, but his alteration isn't necessary. Here's his translation as you cited it:

In the beginning of God's creating the Skies and the earth -- when the earth had been shapeless and formless, and darkness was on the face of the deep​

But he seems to have forgotten that "created" was already in the perfect aspect which he changed to the imperfect - ultimately reversing the meaning the order of the verses. Here we drop the construct:

In the beginning, G-d had created the Skies and the earth. And the earth had been shapeless and formless, and darkness was on the face of the deep​

The past perfect doesn't change the meaning, it just changes our frame of reference. Rather than speaking about the start of the event or state, it tells us that they were true prior to our current position in time. So I think the understanding would be that until the point of verse 3, the earth was shapeless and void, with verse 1 implying that verse 2 occurred at some undefined time after itself (since the earth could not have a state before it was created and that's the order they're in).

I don't have a philosophical problem with choosing one translation as more likely than the other, but it's not enough for me to hear that a person is right simply because he's studied other disciplines. Even though I'm ultra-Orthodox, I can still appreciate argumentation that stands on its own and is subject to critical discussion than considered unassailable truth.

 

[RabbiO]

@JayhawkerSoule -

While I believe the original (1981) Plaut Chumash used the NJPS translation for Beresh*t, the revised edition (2006) does not. It uses a new translation by Rabbi Chaim Stern, z'l. If memory serves me right, Rabbi Stern was going to do a new translation for the entire Torah, but his untimely death - he was only 71 - prevented that.

Let me throw a comment from Dr. Joel Hoffman into the mix (Search Results genesis 1:1 « God Didn't Say That) -

"On Genesis 1:1
While most translations agree that the translation of Genesis 1:1 should read, “In the beginning…” the (Jewish) JPS translation offers instead, “When God began to create…” And the NLT and some others offer a footnote with that possibility. What’s going on?

The answer dates back 1,000 years to Rashi. He notes that the usual word for “in the beginning” would be barishona.And he further notes that b’rei**** is never used except preceding a noun to mean “at the beginning of.”

He therefore concludes that Genesis 1:1 does not say that creation took place “in the beginning,” but rather that it was “in the beginning of” creation that the first part of the story takes place. That is, the earth was in disarray when God began to create.

Rashi’s analysis gives us, “When God began to create,” or (as the translation in Artscroll’s Rashi edition has it) “In the beginning of God’s creating.”

Rashi’s analysis has at least two kinds of problems.

The first is a matter of detail. For his analysis to work, he needs the verb bara to be a participle, though it’s unclear how that’s possible. Secondly, he needs the “and” of “and the earth was…” to mean “when.” That one is possible, though unlikely.

The second kind of problem, though, is methodological.

Rashi is right that b’rei**** is never used except before a noun, but there are only four other times the word is used, all of them in Jeremiah, and all of them before words having to do with “kingdom” or “reign.” This is hardly a large enough sample to deduce what b’rei**** means. (The same reasoning would force bara to mean something about kingdoms.)

Rashi’s point is actually more generally about rei****. (The b- prefix means “in/when/at/etc.”) But here, too, he runs into problems, wrongly assuming that a word is the sum of its parts.

Furthermore, while Rashi is correct that barishona means “at first,” that doesn’t really have much bearing on what b’rei**** means. Perhaps the two words are nearly synonymous, for example. Or maybe barishona means “at first” in the sense of “the first time around” while b’rei**** means “at first” in the sense of “the first and only time around.” (I just met someone who introduces his wife as his “first wife.” She is his first, only, and last wife.)

All of which is to say that Rashi’s commentary here is interesting — and it explains the JPS translation — but I don’t think it helps figure out what the first words of the Bible originally meant."